Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 187 of 2010 Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Juned Alam Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Heard Sri Juned Alam for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the
The question as to whether the petitioner was either to go on training or not
and whether the petitioner had voluntarily not gone on training is a question
which has to be determined by the authority concerned. The process of
training had to be undergone by the petitioner as explained in the G.O. dated
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is now being
superseded in as much as juniors to the petitioner, who have undergone
training are likely to be given the benefit of promotion and the petitioner
would be denied the same as the petitioner has not undergone training, It is
contended that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner and as such the
petitioner cannot be deprived of his benefit of notional seniority for the
purpose of promotion. The question whether the petitioner had voluntarily not
gone for training or whether he had been offered and he did not chose to go
on training, are all questions of fact which will not be governed by the recitals
contained in the G.O. and would be governed by a specific order to be passed
by the competent authority after examination of the records relating to the
claim of the petitioner. In this view of the matter the prayer made by the
petitioner cannot be granted so long as such facts as to whether the petitioner
had voluntarily forgone his claim of going on training or not are assessed. The
petitioner can always approach the respondent no. 2 who shall consider the
claim of the petitioner within 8 weeks from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order before him.
The writ petition is disposed of finally.