Allahabad High Court
Veer Dev Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 12 May, 2023
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Om Prakash Shukla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:32859-DB
Court No. - 1
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 230 of 2023
Appellant :- Veer Dev Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shrawan Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
(1) Heard Sri S.K. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner, Sri Anand Singh, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents.
(2) By instituting the proceedings of this special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, the appellant-petitioner has questioned the judgment and order dated 10.04.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.1292 of 2012 whereby the writ petition has been dismissed and the order dated 27/29.02.2012 whereby the petitioner's promotion on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) (hereinafter referred to as 'ASI (M)') was cancelled, as a result of which he stood reverted to his substantive post of Daftari (a class IV post) has been upheld.
(3) Submission of learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner is that the competent authority by means of an order dated 01.05.2007 had promoted the appellant- petitioner on the post of ASI (M) and after lapse of a period of about five years without affording opportunity of hearing to the appellant-petitioner, the said order of promotion was cancelled which amounted to review and it is settled principle of law that in case law does not permit any administrative authority to review his earlier order, exercise of review will be flawed and bad in law. On these counts, Sri Verma has emphasised that learned Single Judge while passing the order under appeal herein did not take into account the aforesaid principle of law, as such, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
(4) On the other hand, Sri Anand Singh, learned State Counsel has vehementally argued that the special appeal, in the facts of the case, deserves to be dismissed at its threshold for the reason that the appellant-petitioner could not justify that his order of promotion dated 01.05.2007 was passed in accordance with the statutory prescriptions, which governed the promotion to the post of ASI (M) from class IV post in the police department. The submission thus is that the promotion order dated 01.05.2007 was absolutely unlawful and flawed and accordingly, the order dated 27-29.02.2012 whereby his order of promotion was cancelled and he was reverted to his class IV post of Daftari, cannot be said to be unlawful in any manner. It has also been argued by Sri Singh that principles of natural justice cannot be put into any straight jacket formula and even if an opportunity is provided to the appellant-petitioner, that will result in only an empty formality for the reason that the appellant-petitioner does not have anything to say as to how and in what manner his promotion was made on the post of ASI (M) without following the statutory rules. In this view, the prayer is that the special appeal ought to be dismissed.
(5) We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the records available before us on this special appeal. There is nothing on record which in any manner establishes that the promotion of the appellant-petitioner was made on 01.05.2007 on the post of ASI (M) in accordance with the provisions contained in Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Offices Ministerial Group 'C' Posts of Lowest Grade (Recruitment by Promotion) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 2001') which are the statutory rules governing the field of promotion in the instant case.
(6) In view of the said admitted fact that the promotion of the appellant-petitioner was not made following the statutory rules, even if the appellant-petitioner was provided any opportunity of hearing before the order dated 27/29.02.2012 was passed, it would have amounted to a formality. Even before the learned Single Judge in the proceedings of the writ petition, nothing was brought to his notice to justify that promotion of the appellant-petitioner on the post of ASI (M) made by means of the order dated 1.05.2007 was in accordance with the statutory rules. In fact, when we peruse the order dated 01.05.2007, it is clear that the said order was passed without there being any selection in terms of the statutory prescriptions available under Rules, 2001.
(7) So far as the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner that the order dated 27/29.02.2012 amounted to review of the order dated 01.05.2007, we may only note that it is always open for any authority to notice any mistake and rectify the same. In such a situation any order passed will not amount to have been passed in exercise of jurisdiction of review; rather it will be an order rectifying the mistake. Thus, the said submission of the learned counsel for appellant-petitioner does not appeal to us.
(8) Accordingly, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the order passed by learned Single judge.
(9) The special appeal is, thus, highly misconceived, which is hereby dismissed.
(10) However, we also provide that if the appellant-petitioner is otherwise eligible to be promoted to the next higher post ASI (M) in accordance with the prescriptions available in the relevant Rules/Government order, his case shall be considered for promotion strictly in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if any person junior to him in his cadre has been considered and promoted to the next higher post.
(11) There will be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 12.5.2023
Shubhankar
