JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the State-petitioners and Sri Prateek Tewari, learned counsel representing the respondent no.1.

2. Under challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the judgment and order dated 08.06.2022, passed by U.P. Public Services Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the Claim Petition No.249 of 2021 filed by the respondent no.1-claimant has been allowed and while quashing the order dated 22.12.2020, whereby the respondent-claimant was denied promotion to the post of Head Assistant from the post of Senior Assistant, the State authorities have been directed to consider the case of the claimant for promotion to the said post and also to provide consequential benefits, including the benefit of third Assured Career Progression.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the State-petitioners is that the learned Tribunal has completely ignored the Government Order dated 25.03.1994 while allowing the claim petition and as a matter of fact on account of availability of a censure entry awarded to the claimant on 10.04.2017, he could not have been legally promoted to the post in question. It has been argued that the case of the claimant was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committed thrice i.e. on 13.10.2017, 28.03.2018 and 30.06.2020, however, because of availability of the censure entry awarded to the claimant on 10.04.2017 by all the three Departmental Promotion Committees his claim for promotion has rightly been rejected.

4. It has been argued by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners-State authorities that the learned Tribunal has not considered the Government Order dated 25.03.1994 which unambiguously provides that even if a censure entry pertains to an incident occurred previously which is awarded later on, such censure entry will be effective from the date of its award and not with effect from of the date of the incident in respect of which it is awarded. It has thus been argued that such stipulation made in the Government Order dated 25.03.1994 disentitles the claimant to claim his promotion to the post in question.

5. On the other hand, Sri Prateek Tewari, learned counsel representing the respondent no.1-claimant has submitted that in fact the provisions contained in Government Order dated 25.03.1994 and the Government Order dated 30.06.1993 are not in conflict with each other and both operate in different fields.

He has also drawn our attention to another Government Order dated 06.04.1999 and has stated that the very purpose of issuance of the said Government Order is to not only to keep the censure entry in the service record of the employee concerned in the year in which it is awarded, but also to mention as to for which period the censure entry has been awarded so that at the time of evaluation of the character roll of the employee concerned for any purpose the natural consequence/effect of such censure entry awarded later in respect of an earlier incident may be assessed.

6. The submission made by Sri Tewari further is that though the claimant was awarded censure entry on 10.04.2017, however, since while making assessment of annual confidential report for the year 2017-18 the claimant was rated as a very good official/officer as such the censure entry awarded in the mid of 2017 i.e. on 10.04.2017 will lose its efficacy so for as the promotion of claimant to the post in question is concerned for the reason that the said censure entry pertained to the period 2008-09. The submission, thus is that the writ petition is highly misconceived and is based on complete misreading of the provisions contained in the Government Order dated 25.03.1994 and in ignorance of what has been prescribed by the Government in its Government Order dated 06.04.1999, which is liable to be dismissed at its threshold.

7. The fate of this writ petition depends on deciphering the actual purport and correct construction of the provisions contained in