Posted On by &filed under Allahabad High Court, High Court.


Allahabad High Court
Jagdev Prasad vs Secretary Special Secretary Tax & … on 9 August, 2010
Court No. - 29

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 35689 of 1999

Petitioner :- Jagdev Prasad
Respondent :- Secretary Special Secretary Tax & Institutional
Finance& Ors
Petitioner Counsel :- K.K.Roy
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Sheo Kumar Singh,J.

Hon’ble Devendra Kumar Arora,J.

The matter is taken up in the revision of list.
The writ petition is of the year 1999 and is listed under the
hearing of old cases.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for
giving direction to the respondents no. 1 & 2 to promote the
petitioner on the post of Trade Tax Officer (Grade II) in
pursuance of the selection by U. P. Public Service
Commission.

Counter Affidavit has been filed in which it has been clearly
stated that 20 vacancies were wrongly notified by mistake of
the Public Service Commission. In fact number of vacancies
were only thirteen. Petitioner’s name was not included in the
said recommendation. It is further stated that the petitioner
and other similarly situated persons filed writ petition before
this Court in which a direction was given to dispose of the
representation of the petitioners of the said writ petition in
light of the Government Order dated 24.9.1994 and vide
order dated 08.10.1999 (Annexure No. CA-1) representation
has been decided.

It has been clearly stated by the competent authority that no
discrimination has been made and the promotion has been
given strictly in accordance with the prevailing Rules.
It appears that by oversight some additional posts were
notified by the Commission but petitioner’s name was not
included in list of promotion to the post of Trade Tax Officer,
Grade II.

When the writ petition was filed in the year 1999, no stay
order was given and, thus, after 10-11 years, we are of the
view that no cause of action might survive in the writ
petition, therefore, no direction, as prayed, is to be given.
The petitioner also appears to have attained the age of
superannuation and, thus, we are not inclined to interfere in
the matter. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 9.8.2010
ashok


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.189 seconds.