Allahabad High Court
Anardan vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief ... on 13 March, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14466 of 2021
Petitioner :- Anardan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
2. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 14.6.2019 passed by the Superintendent of Police, "E" P.A.C., Head Quarter, U.P. Lucknow, whereby the petitioner's representation in compliance of the order dated 4.4.2014 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.2818 (SS) of 2010, whereby the opposite parties were directed to award assessment to the petitioner for the period from 1995 to 2003 when he was out of service as his services were terminated on the ground that he obtained employment by playing fraud inasmuch as he was not successful in the recruitment, but he could secure the recruitment, has been rejected.
3. The State Public Services Tribunal had allowed the claim petition of the petitioner and he was reinstated in service. A coordinate Bench of this Court also directed on 4.4.2014 to award assessment for the period 1995 to 2003 to the petitioner on the basis of the previous and subsequent assessment in the light of the Government Order dated 30.4.1991.
4. Vide impugned order, the Superintendent of Police "E" PAC, Head Quarter, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow had said that now the promotions are being made in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Armed Constabulary Subordinate Officer Service Rules, 2015 (for short ?Rules, 2015?) and under the said Rules, the promotions are being made on the basis of seniority subject rejection of unfit. It was, therefore, said that when the petitioner was out of service, his claim for giving him the assessment in the character roll and the marks should be counted with the written examination undertaken by the petitioner for promotion to the post of Head Constable.
5. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable on 1.4.1992. While he was working as Constable in 11th Battalion, PAC, Sitapur, his services were terminated vide order dated 27.10.1995. The petitioner's services were dispensed with by giving one month?s pay in lieu of notice as per the powers under the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 on the ground that the petitioner was a temporary Constable. The claim petition was allowed on technical ground.
6. After the petitioner was reinstated in service in the year 2003, he appeared in the written examination for the post of Head Constable (Civil Police) PAC on 9.3.2008. In the written examination, the petitioner was declared as passed. He participated in ITBT examination conducted in the year 2008, in which also he was declared passed. However, in interview the petitioner failed as per the result declared on 26.11.2009.
7. The petitioner preferred a representation dated 9.5.2008 before the Superintendent of Police, ?E? PAC, Head Quarter, Lucknow seeking his promotion to the post of Head Constable. When no action was taken, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.3672 (SS) of 2008. The said writ petition was decided vide judgment and order dated 17.8.2009 with direction to the authorities concerned to decide the representation of the petitioner keeping in view the Government Order dated 30.4.1991, which provided that if for any reason no entry could be recorded in the character roll of an employee for a particular period, then the remarks for the said particular period should be read as blank and the selection committee would take a decision for such entries on the basis of the former and later entries of the employee for the purposes of selection and promotion and give marks for such blank entry.
8. The claim of the petitioner is that no marks were allotted for the period 1995 to 2003 by the selection committee for the post of Head Constable. In compliance of the order dated 17.8.2009 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3672(SS) of 2008, the representation of the petitioner was decided vide order dated 22.10.2009. It was observed that the petitioner was not covered by the Government order dated 30.4.1991 and it has no application in the case of the petitioner.
9. The competent authority took the view that the Government Order dated 30.4.1991 was in respect of the cases, in which it was provided that for any reason the entries were not made in the character roll of an employee. However, in the case of the petitioner, since he did not perform any government function for the period 1995 to 2003, no entry in the character roll of the petitioner for this period could not have been given. In view thereof, it was held that the selection committee rightly did not make any assessment in respect of the character roll of the petitioner for the said period in which he was out of service for the reason that he was terminated.
10. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 22.10.2009, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.2818(SS) of 2010 before this Court. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 4.4.2014 allowed the said writ petition and set aside the order dated 22.10.2009 with a direction to the Commandant, 11th Batalion, PAC, Sitapur to make assessment of the petitioner's character roll for the period, for which his services were terminated on the basis of previous and subsequent work and conduct. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted a representation in compliance of the order dated 4.4.2014 and claimed that he should be given Uttam (Very Good) for the period from 27.10.1995 to 21.9.2003. The said representation has been finally decided vide impugned order.
11. The petitioner is claiming promotion on the basis of the written examination undertaken by him in March, 2008 on the ground that his character roll for the period from 1995 to 2003 be assessed as Uttam (Very good). Now the service rules have been amended and as per the new service Rules, 2015, the promotion to the next post is being made on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit. After commencement of the new Rules, 2015, the petitioner has been promoted. The petitioner is espousing old stale claim. The petitioner remained out of service from 1995 to 2003.
12. I am of the view that no assessment could be made for the period when an employee was out of Government job and his services were terminated. Be that as it may, now the new service Rules have come into force and according to which, the promotions are being made on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit. The old rules have been superseded and no longer in the existence. Therefore, the petitioner's claim for promoting him to the post of Head Constable on the basis of the old rules, cannot be accepted.
13. In view thereof, I do not find any error in the decision taken by the Superintendent, ?E? PAC, Head Quarter, Lucknow.
14. The writ petition has no merit and substance, which is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.3.2023
Rao/-
