Bal Krishna Sinha vs State of U.P.and Another

D S. Sinha, J.—Hearing of the arguments of Sri Sudhakar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, began in the prelunch sitting of the Court. Further hearing of his arguments was to be resumed in the post lunch sitting of the Court. Even after the laps of the period of about 50 minutes, Sri Sudhakar Pandey is not available to resume his arguments. The court is left to no choice except to presume that he does not want to make any further submission. Sri R. C. Yadav, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents, has been heard.

The petitioner, who was appointed officiating Survey NaibTehsildar by means of the order dated 24th February, 1979, a copy whereof is Annexure ''3'' to the petition, prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to promote him on the post of Tehsildar and to provide all the benefits of the said post for which he was entitled.

Prior to being appointed as officiating Survey NaibTehsildar the petitioner was working as Consolidator in the Consolidation Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh.

It has not been demonstrated before this Court as to how an officiating Survey NaibTesildar is entitled for promotion to the post of regular NaibTehsildar. While the Board''s Order, dated 30th January, 1986, a copy whereof is Annexure ''4'' to the petition, clearly indicates that the post of Survey NaibTehsildar is not within the purview of regular NaibTehsildar Service Rules, 1942. Normally, a regular NaibTehsildar, appointed under the NaibTehsildar Service Rules, 1942 is entitled for being considered for promotion on the post of regular Tehsildar.

In the circumstances, the Court is clearly of the opinion that the petitioner has no legally cognizable and judicially enforceable right to be promoted on the post of Tehsildar as claimed by him.

In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed summarily.