SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri R. O. V. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 1. 0. 1990 Annexure-1 to the writ petition whereby certain respondents No. 3 to 6 who were working on Group D posts have been promoted in group C posts in the Collectorate, Etawah.

( 3 ) THE relevant facts disclosed in the petition are that the petitioner was appointed as group D employee on 31. 3. 1990 under U. P. Government Servant (Dying in harness) Rules 1974. In the year 1998 for making promotion against four vacancies in group C, the respondents held a written test by calling the petitioner, respondents 3 to 6 and others. They appeared in interview on 19. 9. 1998 and thereafter the respondents 3 to 6 promoted by means of the impugned order.

( 4 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that the Government Order dated 22. 3. 1984 which provides that promotion has to be made only on the basis of seniority has not been followed and the respondents illegally held written test and interview which was not permissible in view of the aforesaid Government Order dated 22. 3. 1984. The petitioner further pressed on the basis of her service record and seniority, that she was entitled for promotion and ought to be have been promoted on the basis of seniority.

( 5 ) THE respondents have filed counter affidavit. Relying on the Government Order dated 31. 8. 1982, it has been contended that 15% vacancies in group C are reserved for such group D employees who have passed High School and equivalent qualification and have continued work for five years in group D post. The criteria for promotion prescribed under Government Order dated 31. 8. 1982 is merit which is to be determined by conducting written test, interview and also the character roll entries of the group 0 employees who are to be considered for promotion. It is further submitted that the petitioner and the respondents No, 3 to 6 appeared in the written test but the petitioner could secure only seven marks In written test and therefore, she could not compete with other respondents in merit. Hence hot selected.

( 6 ) THE petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit has reiterated the facts stated in the writ petition.

( 7 ) THE only question to be decided in the case is "whether criteria for promotion from group D to group C is merit or seniority".

( 8 ) CONSIDERING the Government Order dated 22. 3. 1984 it is apparent that it does not lay down any criteria for promotion to any post or cadre in service. Para-2 of the Government Order lays down only procedure to be followed in the matter of promotion where criteria is "seniority subject to the rejection of unfit or "merit", but by itself the criteria for promotion is not laid down. For brevity, para-2 of the Government Order dated 22. 3. 1984 is quoted here under:

2. AT AH LOK SEWA AYOG KE PARIDHI KE BAHAR KE PADO PAR CHAYAN KE prakriya ME EK RUPTA EAKHNE KE UDDESHYA SE SAMYAK VICHAROPARANT shasan DWARA NIMN PRAKRIYA NIRDHARIT Kl GA Yl HAI: (1) ANUPYUKTO KE CHHODTE HUE JYESTHATA A ADhar PAR CHAYAN KE prakriya: (A) IS SIDHANT KE TAHAT RIKTIYON KE NAMO PAR BARISTHTA KRAM, ME VICHAR kiya JANA CHAHIYA. SARVAPRATHAM BARISTHTAM ADHIKARI KA NAM PAR VICHAR kar USE UPYUKT GHOSHIT KARNE KE BAD DUSRE TA THA TEESRE AURAAGE ESI prakar KE ADHIKARIO KE NAMO PAR VICHAR KIYA JANA CHIHIYE JAB TAK riktiyon KE TULNA ME VANCHHIT SANKHYA ME PRONNATI KE LIYA UPYOUKT adhikari UPLABDH NAho JAYE JAB PRONNATl KA LIYA VAANCHHIT HANKHYA ME adhlkari UPLABDH HO JAYE TAB USKE BAD KE ADHIKARIO KE NAMO PAR VICHAR karne Kl AVASYAKTA NE RAHEGI. (B) ES SIDHAnt KE ADHAR PAR PRONNATI HETU SHAMBANDHlt ADHIKARIO KE pronna Tl KE PAD A DHEEK NEECHE KE PAD PAR KARYA KARNE Kl AVADHI KE pravisthiyon TEKHI JAYE AUR YADI VAISI AVADHI 10 VARS SE ADHIK HO TO KEVAL antim 10 VARS KE PRAVISTIYO TEKHI JAYE.

(2) SHRESTHTA KE ADHAR PAR CHAYAN

Click Here to Read the rest of this document