Allahabad High Court
Yograj Singh And 33 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 24 May, 2024
Author: Piyush Agrawal
Bench: Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:94198
RESERVED
Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12576 of 2019
Petitioner :- Yograj Singh And 33 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Umesh Vats,Mannu Ram
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Ms. Akanksha Sharma
HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Umesh Vats, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Akanksha Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2, 3 & 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. By means of present writ petition, the following prayer has been made:-
"(A) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17.12.2018 passed by the respondent no.3 by which the petitioners have been demoted.
(B) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(C)........"
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are 34 in numbers, who have filed the present joint petition challenging the impugned order by which they have been demoted from Headmasters to the Assistant Teachers. The petitioners were initially appointed in different Prathmic Vidyalayas in District- Moradabadd run by Basic Shiksha and who got their promotions under the provision of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Services Rules, 1981. The petitioners were promoted on the post of Headmasters in different schools by order dated 13.08.2010 in which it has been held that due promotion has been done under backlog vacancy under Rule 3 (2) of U.P. Public Services (Reservation for S.C., S.T. & O.B.C.) Act, 1994, but by the impugned order, the petitioners have been demoted,. Hence the present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were never promoted applying the reservation given under Rule 3 (7) of the aforesaid Act or Rule-8A of the Seniority Rule, but the benefit of reservation was given. He further submits that by the impugned order, without there being any direction given in Writ-A No.24691 of 2018, the demotions of the petitioner have been made, which is bad. He prays for allowing the present writ petition.
5. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Power Corporation Limited. Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Others, (2012) 7 SCC 1 and refers para 87 of the said judgment.
6. Per contra, Ms. Akanskha Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 2, 3 & 4 supports the impugned order and submits that the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Rajesh Kumar and others (supra) specific directions have been given for reverting the persons who have been promoted during the period 15.11.1997 to 28.04.2012. Admittedly, the petitioners have been promoted by order dated 13.08.2010. She further submits that the issue in hand is covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Rajesh Kumar (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has only carved out the exception for not disturbing any promotion of those persons who have been given promotion on the strength of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India, 1992 Suppl (3) SCC 217. She further submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court has also put a rider that those promotions may also not be disturbed which have been given without any aid or assistance of Rule 3 (7) and Rule 8A. She next submits that both the conditions has to be complied only then the promotion for individual may not be disturbed.
7. She further submits that the above two conditions has to go simultaneously; if either of the conditions is not complied with, the petitioners cannot take shelter that the promotion was not made with the aid or assistance of Section 3 (7). She next submits that though the petitioners have admittedly mentioned in various paragraphs of their petition that the promotion has not been made under Section 3 (7), but have not whispered a word for applying the dictum given in Indra Sawhney (supra). Once there is no pleadings in the entire writ petition, the benefit which the petitioners are trying to draw from the para 87 cannot legally been accorded to them. She prays for allowing the present writ petition.
8. After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the record.
9. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were promoted on the post of Headmasters in different Prathmic Vidyalayas in District- Mordadabd. It is also not in dispute that the promotions were not made with the aid or assistance of Section 3 (7) or Rule 8-A.
10. Further, the impugned order appears to have been passed in view of the judgment given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar and others (supra) in which the exception has been carved out in para 87. The case in hand does not fall in the said exception as the two conditions imposed by the Hon'ble Apex Court does not applies, which reads as under:-
"In the ultimate analysis, we conclude and hold that Section 3 (7) of the 1994 Act and Rule 8-A of the 2007 Rules are ultra vires as they run counter to the dictum in M. Nagaraj. Any promotion that has been given on the dictum of Indra Sawhney "and" without the aid "or" assistance of Section 3 (7) and Rule 8-A shall remain undisturbed."
11. On perusal of the aforesaid Section, which clearly demonstrates that the both the conditions have to be complied in one breadth; if either is not present, the benefit cannot be given. It is not the case of the petitioners that the promotions were the dictum of Indra Sawhney (supra).
12. Furthermore, the petitioners could not dispute that the promotions have been made prior to 1997 nor any pleadings, or any averment were shown, nor at the time of hearing, any material has been shown. Once there is no such pleadings on record to show that the exception carved out in the case of Rajesh Kumar (supra) passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court has been fulfilled by the petitioners, no interference can be called for in the impugned order.
13. Accordingly, the preset writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.05.2024
Pravesh Mishra/-
