Back
2024 Supreme(All) 1084
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR
Vinod Kumar Rai – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors – Respondents
Writ A No.57613 of 2014
Decided on : 22-07-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Anil Kumar Srivastava, O.P. Sharma
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Sunil Kumar Mishra
IMPORTANT POINT
Promotions in public service based on merit cannot be invalidated by the application of reservation policies without proper quantifiable data justifying such reservations.
Headnote:
PROMOTION - CANCELLATION OF PROMOTION - Article 16(4), Section 3(7) of the 1994 Act, Rule 8A of the 2011 Rules - The court discussed the legal framework surrounding promotions and reservations in public service, particularly focusing on Article 16(4) of the Constitution, which prohibits reservation in promotions without adequate justification. The court interpreted the Supreme Court's rulings in M. Nagaraj and Rajesh Kumar cases, establishing that promotions based on merit cannot be annulled solely due to the application of reservation policies that lack proper quantifiable data. The court concluded that the cancellation of the petitioner's promotion was unjustified and quashed the order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the cancellation of his promotion to Tyre Inspector by the respondent Corporation, which was based on the argument that his earlier promotion was invalid due to the application of reservation policies. The petitioner contended that his promotions were based on merit and seniority, and the cancellation was unjustified.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's initial promotion to Vulcanizer was valid and based on a selection process. The cancellation of his promotion was deemed unjustified as it was based on the erroneous application of reservation policies without proper justification. The court held that the dismissal of the earlier writ petition as infructuous did not affect the legality of the promotions.
Issues: Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's promotion was justified based on the application of reservation policies and the dismissal of his earlier writ petition as infructuous.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that promotions based on merit cannot be annulled solely due to the application of reservation policies that lack adequate justification. The dismissal of a writ petition as infructuous does not invalidate prior lawful promotions.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of cancellation of the petitioner's promotion and upheld his promotions to Vulcanizer and Tyre Inspector as valid.
JUDGMENT :
HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR
1. Heard Shri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sunil Kumar Misha, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation.
2. Petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by the decision taken by the respondent Corporation dated 09.09.2014 whereby the promotion of the petitioner as Tyre Inspector made on 13.09.2012 has been cancelled.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner while working on the post of Vulcanizer was promoted as per seniority as Tyre Inspector in the year 2012 and merely because his earlier writ petition, in respect of the promotion to the post of vulcanizer was dismissed in default, the respondents were not justified in cancelling the order of promotion. He submits that as earlier petitioner was promoted from the post of Assistant Vulcanizer to Vulcanizer on 11.02.2005, the said order was wrongly recalled on the ground that reservation shall not apply in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Vs. Rajesh Kumar and others 2012 5 ADJ page no. 19 where reservation to promotional posts were held to be bad without scheme. It is submitted that though petitioner was promoted in general category on the basis of merit on 11.02.2005 even then his promotion was sought to be withdrawn on the ground that roster will not apply. The said order dated 23.03.2005 came to be challenged in writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27430 of 2005. It is submitted that the petitioner had withdrawn the earlier petition only because he was awarded with second promotion on 13.09.2012, of course, after the judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court on 27.04.2012 in Rajesh Kumar case (supra).
4. Per contra, it is sought to be argued on behalf of respondent corporation that rightly or wrongly once order of promotion was withdrawn and the same was put to challenged, continuance of petitioner as Vulcanizer was at the strength of interim order and with the dismissal of the writ petition, the same could be withdrawn as the interim order got merged into the final order of dismissal. Thus, according to him, the order withdrawing his promotion on 23.03.2005 stood revived and the petitioner should be taken to have got reverted to the position of Vulcanizer. It is sought to be argued that the order impugned is justified one in the given facts and circumstances of the case.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the record, I find that the order promoting the petitioner from Assistant Vulcanizer to Vulcanizer on 11.02.2005 was based upon the decision of the selection committee as he had passed the trait test examination held in that regard. Since he was promoted with the rider that he would be revered if the work was not found satisfactory, it was a promotion of the petitioner on clear vacancy substantively upon the selection held by the selection committee. The said order came to be cancelled only on the ground that as per the relevant Government Order, roster to the promotional post would not apply. So the petitioner's candidature was sought to be non-suited only on the ground that the post fell in the reserved quota and the petitioner could not be promoted even though he had the requisite merit and was will placed in seniority. When this order came to be challenged before this Court in a Writ Petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27420 of 2005, the order was stayed by this Court on 07.04.2005 in following terms:
"Considering the submission of the petitioner that he was granted promotion after having faced regular selection committee and he has already joined on the promoted post, and by the impugned order he has been reverted back without giving an opportunity of hearing tot he petitioner or issuing any show cause notice to him, the operation of the impugned order dated 23.3.2005 passed by respondent no.3 shall remain stayed until further orders."
6. It transpires that
