Allahabad High Court
Ram Shanker Chaubey (Inre 6493 S/S ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. ... on 8 May, 2017
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Sanjay Harkauli
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 184 of 2017
Appellant :- Ram Shanker Chaubey (Inre 6493 S/S 2017)
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.,Medical & Health Services & 4
Counsel for Appellant :- Vinod Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Sanjay Harkauli,J.
Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.
This appeal questions the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 4.4.2017 in relation to the claim of promotion of the petitioner from Class - IV to Class - III in the clerical cadre of the U.P. Subordinate Offices Ministerial Group 'C' Posts in the Medical & Health Department.
Earlier, there were the U.P. Medical Health and Family Welfare Department (Subordinate Officials) Clerical Cadre Rules, 1994, whereafter the Rules relating to such cadre in all departments were promulgated, namely, the U.P. Subordinate Offices Ministerial Group 'C' Posts of the Lowest Grade [Recruitment by Promotion] Rules, 2001. The instant case is in relation to 20% promotion against the posts available from amongst Class - IV employees. The petitioner contends that he is fully qualified and eligible, and therefore the department committed a manifest error by imposing the condition of the knowledge of typing in relation to the post on which promotion was being claimed by the petitioner. He however submits that the learned Single Judge has arrived at an incorrect conclusion without taking into account the correct ratio of the judgment in Special Appeal No.477 (D) of 2010, State of U.P. v. Umesh Chandra Srivastava and others reported in 2011 (1) UPLBEC 131 that has been followed later on by another Division Bench in Writ Petition No.4060 (SB) of 2016, State of U.P. and others v. Hirnyash Kumar Singh and another, decided on 13.1.2017. A copy of the said judgment has been filed as Annexure - 2 to the stay application. It is therefore submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts and there being no requirement in law to possess the knowledge of typing, the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge on the strength of the 1994 Rules is erroneous.
Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has invited the attention of the Court to the Division Bench judgment in the case of Ved Vrat Tyagi and 15 others v. State of U.P. and others, Special Appeal No.173 of 2017 in relation to the U.P. Government Department Ministerial Cadre Service Rules, 2014 where a similar issue had been raised and the Special Appeal was dismissed on 1.5.2017 interpreting the very same Rules that are presently involved, namely the 2001 Rules. The contention therefore is that if the same Rules have been interpreted in relation to another set of employees under the State, then the ratio of the said judgment would squarely apply on the facts of the present case. The judgment of the learned Single Judge requiring knowledge of Hindi Typing has been held to be an essential qualification to make a candidate eligible for participation in the selection for promotion to Group 'C' posts.
We have considered the aforesaid submissions raised and we find ourselves in full agreement with the Division Bench judgment in the case of Ved Vrat Tyagi (supra) more so in view of the fact that second note appended to Rule 8 (2) of the 2001 Rules clearly prescribes that where recruitment by promotion is being made for the post of Typist or a post for which the Hindi Typing is essential, a qualifying test of Hindi Typewriting shall also be conducted and to qualify such a test, a candidate must have a minimum speed of 25 words per minute (w.p.m.) in Hindi Typewriting.
We have examined all the 26 paragraphs of the writ petition and we do not find any averment of the appellant-petitioner to the effect that the post on which promotion is being sought by the petitioner does not require the essential knowledge of typing with 25 w.p.m. as a speed. This case was not even set-up in the writ petition, rather the Rule was being described as illegal and arbitrary and the imposition of the said Rule by the respondents was being criticized in the entire writ petition.
Having considered the submissions, what we find is that the logic as deployed by the learned Single Judge in the case of Rakesh Kumar Mishra and others v. State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition No.6532 (SS) of 2017 and as made applicable on the facts of the case of the appellant in the impugned judgment do not require any interference as they are in conformity with what we have stated and held here-in-above. The judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellant therefore are clearly distinguishable, and do not apply on the issue raised in the present appeal.
There is no error much less a legal error so as to warrant interference.
Rejected with the said observations.
Order Date :- 8.5.2017
lakshman
[Sanjay Harkauli, J.] [Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.]
