Jagvir Singh vs State Of U.P.& 5 Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 5354 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 45999 of 2013
 

 
Petitioner :- Jagvir Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 5 Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rohit Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 20.2.2013 whereby three Lekhpals including respondents no.5 and 6 have been promoted as Assistant Registrar Kanungo.

3. The sole grievance of petitioner is that he is senior to respondents no.5 and 6 but has been ignored and superseded by them illegally though criteria for promotion is "seniority subject to rejection of unfit". The petitioner being senior and had no adverse service record, as a matter of right, was entitled for such promotion.

4. In the seniority list of Lekhpals, name of petitioner finds mention at serial no.18 while the respondents no.5 and 6 are at serial no.52 and 62. A copy of seniority list is Annexure 4 to the writ petition.

5. I have perused the record as also relevant statutory provision but apparently do not find any force in the submission that criteria for selection is mere "seniority subject to rejection of unfit", therefore merely by virtue of seniority, petitioner is entitled for promotion.

6. The rules applicable in the case initially were titled as "U.P. Avar Rajsaw Lipik (Registrar Kanungo Aur Sahayak Registrar Kanungo) Sewa Niyamawali, 1958". The aforesaid title of above rules underwent an amendment in 1988 due to change of designation of "Registrar Kanungo" as "Registrar Revenue Inspector" and "Sahayak Registrar Kanungo" as "Sahayak Registrar Revenue Inspector" and presently the title of Rules reads as "U.P. Avar Rajsaw Lipik (Registrar Revenue Inspector Aur Sahayak Registrar Revenue Inspector) Sewa Niyamawali, 1958" (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1958").

7. For source of recruitment for the post of Assistant Registrar Revenue Inspector is Lekhpal having at least six years of service vide Rule 7 of Rules, 1958. The procedure for appointment/promotion is provided in Rule 8 of Rules, 1958. Rules 7 and 8 of Rules, 1958 read as under:

^^7- HkrhZ ds lzksr%& jftLV~kj Hkwys[k fujh{kd dh dksfV esa HkrhZ LFkk;h lgk;d jftLV~kj Hkwys[k fujh{kd dh] ftudh de ls de rhu o"kZ dh lsok gks xbZ gks] inksUufr }kjk dh tk;sxh vkSj lgk;d jftLV~kj Hkwys[k fujh{kd dh dksfV esa HkrhZ de ls de 6 o"kksZ dh lsok okys ys[kikyksa dh inksUufr }kjk dh tk;sxhA

fVIi.kh%& ,slk i;Zos{kd ¼lqijokbZtj½ Hkwys[k fujh{kd Hkh tks viuh nh?kZ vk;q vFkok fucZyrk ds dkj.k i;Zos{kd ¼lqijokbZtj½ Hkwys[k fujh{kd ds {ks= esa dk;Z djus ds fy, vuqi;qDr gks] jftLV~kj Hkwys[k fujh{kd ds in ij fu;qDr ds fy, ik= le>k tk;sxkA

8- HkrhZ djus dh iz.kkyh%& ¼1½ fu;e 7 ds v/khu jftLV~kj Hkwys[k fujh{kd dh HkrhZ ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, p;u ,sls LFkk;h lgk;d jftLV~kj Hkwys[k fujh{kdksa esa ls T;s"Brk ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tk;sxk] ftudh ml o"kZ dh igyh tuojh dks ftlesa p;u fd;k tk;] rhu o"kksaZ dh lsok iwjh gks x;h gks] fdUrq vuqi;qDr O;fDr;ksa dks ugha fy;k tk;sxkA

¼2½ ¼d½ lgk;d jftLV~kj Hkwys[k fujh{kdksa dh HkrhZ ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, mu ys[kikyksa esa ls tks bl mi&fu;e ds [k.M ¼[k½ ds v/khu ukekafdr fd;s x;s gksa] T;s"Brk ds vk/kkj ij p;u fd;k tk;sxk] fdUrq vuqi;qDr O;fDr;ksa dks ugha fy;k tk;sxkA

fVIi.kh%& ,slk vH;FkhZ tks vuqi;qDr gksus ds dkj.k u fy;k tk;] dsoy mlh volj ds fy, vuqi;qDr le>k tk;sxk vkSj ckn dks fd;s tkus okys izR;sd p;u esa mlds izlax esa lE;d :i ls fopkj fd;k tk;sxkA

¼[k½ dysDVj izR;sd o"kZ flrEcj esa] lgk;d jftLV~kj Hkwys[k fujh{kd dh ftys dh dksfV esa gksus okyh fjfDr;ksa dh yxHkx la[;k ekywe dkjsxk vkSj vius ftys ds izR;sd ijxuk vf/kdkjh ls] 'khrdkyhu nkSjs ds i'pkr~ ,sls dqN ys[kikyksa dks] ftudh la[;k og fuf'pr djsxk] ukekafdr djus ds fy, dgsxk] ftUgksaus ys[kiky ds :i esa ml o"kZ dh] ftlesa ukekadu fd;k tk;] igyh tuojh dks de ls de 6 o"kksZa dh lsok iwjh dj yh gS] jkT; dh twfu;j ;k gkbZLdwy ijh{kk ¼vaxzsth ds lkFk½ ;k mlds led{k ;k mlls ÅaWph ijh{kk mRrh.kZ dh gks] ftudh vk;q ml o"kZ dh] ftlesa ukekadu fd;k tk;] igyh tuojh dks 35 o"kZ ls vf/kd u gks] vkSj tks lgk;d jftLV~kj Hkwys[k fujh{kd ds in ij mUufr ikus ds fy, mi;qDr le>s tk;sa] fdUrq izfrcU/k ;g gS fd mu O;fDr;ksa dks izkFkfedrk nh tk;sxh] ftudh f'k{kk lEcU/kh ;ksX;rk,a vkSj lsok ys[kk vf/kd vPNk gksxkA

¼x½ dysDVj [k.M ¼[k½ ds v/khu ukeakfdr lHkh vH;fFkZ;ksa ds izlax ij fopkj djsxk vkSj vius foosd ls muesa ls mrus O;fDr;ksa ls] ftUgsa og vko';d le>s ftys ds eq[;kokl ij lk{kkRdkj djsxkA

¼?k½ inksUufr ds fy, vH;fFkZ;ksa dk p;u djus esa fuEufyf[kr ckrksa dks /;ku esa j[kk tk;sxk%&

¼1½ iwoZ lsok dk fooj.k]

¼2½ lR;fu"Bk]

¼3½ pfj= vkSj

¼4½ cqf) oSHko ¼ intelligence ½ vkSj ;ksX;rk] fdUrq izkFkfedrk mu O;fDr;ksa dks nh tk;sxh] ftudh f'k{kk lEcU/kh ;ksX;rk;sa vkSj lsok ys[kk vf/kd vPNk gksA

¼M-½ dysDVj mu ys[kikyksa ds ukeksa dh lwph rS;kj djsxk ftudks mlus inksUufr ds fy, pqu fy;k gksA mDr lwph esa vH;fFkZ;ksa dh la[;k fuEufyf[kr [k.M ¼p½ esa crk;s gq, :i esa j[kh tk;sxh%&

¼p½ mi;qZDr [k.M ¼d½ ds v/khu pqus gq, ys[kikyksa ds uke ml lwph esa p<+k;s tk;saxs tks dysDVj vius ftys ds fy, j[krk gSA lwphxr vH;fFkZ;ksa ds uke muds p;u ds fnukad ds vuqlkj j[ks tk;sxs] fdUrq izfrcU/k ;g gS fd ,d gh fnukad ij pqus ys[kikyksa ds ikjLifjd uke p;u ds iwoZ muds ewy osru ds vuqlkj j[ks tk;sxs] vkSj ;fn muds osru cjkcj gksa rks mudh lsok dh] nh?kZdkyhurk ds vuqlkj j[ks tk;saxsA mDr lwph esa ys[kikyksa dh la[;k mu fjfDr;ksa dh la[;k dh yxHkx nks frgkbZ gksxh ftudh ftys ds lgk;d jftLV~kj Hkwys[k fujh{kdksa dh dskfV ¼cader½ esa rhu o"kZ dh vof/k esa gksus dh lEHkouk gS] fdUrq ftys ds fy, Lohd`r lgk;d jftLV~kj Hkwys[k fujh{kdksa dh la[;k dh nks frgkbZ ls de ugha gksxhA^^

8. Rule 8(2)(b) and (d) of Rules, 1958 makes it very clear that criteria for promotion is suitability for which relevant guidelines /traits are indicated in Rule 8(2)(d). The aforesaid criteria cannot be at par with seniority subject to rejection of unfit but here the criteria is sheer suitability for promotion for which the relevant aspects to be considered are also indicated in the rules. The Selection Committee, in the present case, has considered all the eligible persons and thereafter has made its recommendation, which has been accepted and promotion has been made. It is not the case of the petitioner that Selection Committee has any malice or otherwise committed illegality in the matter of selection. It is also not the case of petitioner that he has not at all been considered by the Selection Committee.

9. In these facts and circumstances this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of promotion since judicial review in such matter is very limited. In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and others Versus Dr.B.S.Mahajan and others reported in 1990(1) SCC 305 a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court considering the scope of judicial review in selection matters observed as under:

"It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee, which has the expertise on the subject. The court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc. It is not disputed that in the present case the University has constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the court, the High Court went wrong and excee3ded its jurisdiction." (Para-12)

10. In the case of Union of India and another Versus Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava and another JT 2001 (8) SC 251 the Apex Court held as under:

"So long as the bias of the selection committee could not be proved, the only aspect that the tribunal ought to have considered was whether there was compliance with the relevant rules in the conduct of interview." (Para-8)

11. It is thus well settled legal position that the scope of judicial review in such matters is permissible; only (1) where the selection process suffers from the vice of mala fide (2) where there is violation of statutory provisions (3) where there is an error in the decision making process causing serious prejudice to the candidate.

12. I do not find that the case in hand falls under any of the above categories.

13. Writ petition, therefore, lacks merit. Dismissed.

14. No costs.

Order Date :- 3.9.2013

KA