Dinesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2822 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 33
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2696 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar Srivastava,Alok Kumar Rai
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

Petitioner is aggrieved by an action of Block Education Officer, Block Campierganj, District Gorakhpur; whereby respondent no. 5 has been permitted to operate midday meal, instead of petitioner. According to petitioner, he is senior to respondent no. 5 and is, therefore, entitled to function as officiating Principal and also operate midday meal scheme in the Institution.

Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent points out that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic School in the year 2002; whereas respondent no. 5 was appointed in same capacity in the year 1999. It is then contended that petitioner was offered accelerated promotion under Section 3(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Servants (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 and, therefore, petitioner became senior to respondent no. 5 on the promoted post. However, petitioner's promotion has been nullified on account of judgment of the Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar and others: (2012) 7 SCC, 1. It is submitted that on account of such decision seniority of petitioner viz-a-viz respondent no. 5 will have to be counted from the date of initial appointment and not on the basis of promotion which has already been nullified under orders of the Supreme court.

It is not in issue that petitioner was substantively appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year 2002; whereas respondent no. 5 was appointed on the same capacity in 1999. Respondent no. 5 admittedly is senior to petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher. The seniority on the post of Assistant Teacher alone would be a relevant criteria, once the petitioner's accelerated promotion has been set at not on account of orders passed by the Supreme Court. No direction, therefore, is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction to interfere with the order impugned.

The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 22.2.2021

Ranjeet Sahu