Gireesh Chandra Sonkar And 2 ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 15167 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:33300
 
Court No. - 8
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3426 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Gireesh Chandra Sonkar And 2 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State.

2. Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeing setting aside order dated 6/14.10.2015 passed by the District Magistrate, Gonda whereby the petitioner was ordered to be reverted to his original post i.e. Lekhpal from the post of Kanoongo after the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors : Civil Appeal No.2608 of 2011.

3. As per the order dated 6/14.10.2015 the petitioner was promoted giving the benefit of provisions of Section 3(7) of the S.C./S.T. Reservation Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1994') read with Rule 8(a) of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1991). Said provisions have been struck down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment.

4. After the aforesaid judgment, a committee was constituted to consider the cases of the Government servants, who were promoted between 15.11.1997 to 28.04.2012 giving the benefit of the aforesaid provision i.e. Section 3(7) of the Act, 1994 read with Rule 8(a) of the 1991, Rules. The petitioner was found to have been promoted giving the benefit of the aforesaid provisions, therefore, he was reverted back to the post of Area Lekhpal from where he was promoted to the post of Kanoongo.

5. Considering the fact that the petitioner has approached this Court after eight years of the impugned order and there are no sufficient pleadings in respect of his claim that he was not promoted giving the benefit of Section 3(7) of the Act, 1994 read with Rule 8(a) of the 1991, Rules, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order.

6. This petition lacks merit and substance which is hereby dismissed. The petitioner may approach any authority other than the Court for his grievance, if any.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)

Order Date :- 15.5.2023

prateek