Sabhajeet Singh vs State of U.P.& Ors.

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 17121999, 1512001 and 732001 passed by the Finance Controller.

It is alleged that the petitioner was selected and appointed as Assistant Accountant on 11111986 in the payscale of Rs. 470735. The petitioner joined on 13111986 in accordance with the Government order dated 781986, which came into force w.e.f. 14111986. The petitioner was selected on the post of Accountant and was recommended by the Selection Committee in its decision dated 2721987. Subsequently the petitioner was appointed by the Financial controller of Basic Shiksha Parishad on 2531987 and since then the petitioner is continuously working.

It is alleged that the petitioner was illegally reverted by the order dated 30121988. However, the said order was stayed by the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 164 of 1989. Subsequently in Special Appeal No. 87 of 1996, State Government issued another Government order dated 481998 by which the Assistant Accountant who are working for about 3 years entitled for promotion as Accountant.

It was further alleged that after dismissal of the special appeal on 2181999 the Financial Controller reverted the petitioner in an arbitrary manner on 17121999 and subsequently, the petitioner''s seniority was also not maintained and the petitioner has been placed alongwith Assistant Accountant who were appointed in 1997 and on the other facts contained in the writ petition.

Thereafter a seniority list dated 1512001 was prepared treating the petitioner as Assistant Accountant and he was transferred to Fatehpur by order dated 732001. All these orders of reversion dated 17121999 reverting the petitioner, seniority list dated 1512001 treating the petitioner as Junior Assistant Accountant and order of transfer dated 732001 are challenged in this petition which are annexed as Annexure No. 10, 13 and 14.

It is contended that the petitioner was working as Accountant after his appointment vide order dated 2531987. A list of Assistant Accountant was prepared on 251997 and 931999. In the said seniority list the petitioner was not shown although according to the appointment as Assistant Accountant w.e.f. 13111986 his name ought to have appeared in between Hasmuddin Khan, Serial No. 9 and Dinesh Kumar Serial No. 10. The seniority list has been annexed as Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition.

Again another seniority list was prepared on 931999 in which Shiv Prasad Gupta has been shown at Sl. No. 4, Hamuddin at Sl. No. 10 and Dinesh Kumar at Sl. No. 11, whereas the petitioner''s name was not shown which should be in between Sl. No. 10 and Sl. No. 11.

It is alleged that the petitioner was illegally reverted against the Government Order dated 481998 and the Financial Controller prepared another seniority list on 1512001 treating the petitioner alongwith Assistant Accountants, who however appointed in the year 1997 placing the petitioner at Sl. No. 1. The said seniority list is annexed as Annexure No. 13 to the writ petition. The petitioner claims that he ought to have been placed between Sl. No. 9 and 10 in the seniority list dated 851997 as he was senior to Dinesh Kumar.

In so far as the order dated 732001 is concerned it is alleged that transfer order has been issued transferring the petitioner to Fatehpur without considering earlier application or request dated 1111999 and aggrieved by the seniority list dated 1512001 as well as order of transfer dated 732001 the petitioner moved an application on 2432001 requesting the authorities to give benefit of the Government Order dated 481998 and his seniority may be maintained.

Further contention of the petitioner is that he has been illegally punished without any cause treating him junior to the Assistant Accountants who were appointed alongwith the petitioner and that he was not liable to be transferred as according to transfer policy it was clearly specified that if any servant once forgo his promotion then he should not be transferred. The counsel for the petitioner further states that by the dismissal of the Special Appeal by which a revision order dated 30121998 has been upheld has become redundant and is liable to be ignored in view of the continuity of service of the petitioner and after coming into force of the Government order dated 481998.

Reliance has been placed on Rule 23 of the Rules by the petitioner in this regard and it is submitted that his seniority cannot be affected and the seniority shall be the same of the persons appointed to the service by promotion shall be same as he was in substantive appointment and as such the petitioner must be placed in between Hasmuddin and Dinesh Kumar. The petitioner further states that his seniority is liable to be maintained in accordance with the U.P Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991.

It appears from perusal of Annexure 10, the letter dated 17121999 that the petitioner''s appointment on the post of Accountant was not proper as he did not possess requisite qualification for the post. He was reverted to original post vide order dated 30121988. Aggrieved by the order dated 30121988 the petitioner filed writ petition before High Court Lucknow Bench in which an interim order was passed for maintaining status quo which was dismissed by order dated 2151999. Against the order of dismissal the petitioner moved special appeal which has also been dismissed.

Thereafter the petitioner was reverted to his original post with direction to the Finance and Accounts Officer, Basic Shiksha Parishad, Banda in this regard, therefore, he was rightly shown as junior Assistant Accountant in the seniority list dated 1512001. There is no illegality or infirmity shown to me in the order dated 732001. In fact by order dated 732001 the petitioner has been transferred by giving him promotion. There is no interim order in this case. No illegality or infirmity have been shown in the orders dated 17121999, seniority list dated 1512001 and order of transfer dated 732001 which is impugned in the writ petition.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.