Court No. - 26 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8115 of 1992 Petitioner :- Lakhan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P.& Others Petitioner Counsel :- Rajeev Sharma Respondent Counsel :- S.C. Hon'ble Shishir Kumar,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Standing Counsel.
The petitioner has approached this Court against an order dated
28.2.1992 by which the petitioner was promoted only for a period
of 89 days and thereafter has been reverted. The petitioner
obtained an interim order but the said writ petition was dismissed
on 3.10.2001 and it was actually restored on 27.7.2007. The
petitioner submits that in pursuance of the interim order, the
petitioner was permitted to continue on the said post.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that when
the authorities came to know regarding the dismissal of the writ
petition, an order dated 30.6.2007 was passed reverting the
petitioner to his original post. As the promotion of the petitioner
was only for a period of 89 days, therefore, the petitioner has got
no right to claim that he is entitled to remain on the promoted post
on the basis of the order.
On the other hand, Mr. Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner was that junior
persons to the petitioner were permitted to continue but the
petitioner has been reverted. This controversy, at this stage, cannot
be decided in view of the fact that admittedly the writ petition was
dismissed in 2001 and it has been restored in 2007. The judgment
of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitoner in the case of Arun Kumar Rout and others Vs. State
of Bihar and others, reported in AIR 1998 SC 1477 will not be
applicable in this case as it is a case regarding their initial
appointment and consideration for the purpose of regularization in
the event of continuous service for a period of 5 years while the
claim of the petitioner is regarding promotion on the particular
post. It is well settled in law that if a regular promotion after due
consideration by the Selection Committee has not been done, a
person will have no right to continue on the promoted post. The
order impugned clearly indicates that the promotion of the
petitioner was for a period of 89 days. A specific mention was
made in the order that immediately after 89 days the petitioner will
be reverted to his original post. It is well settled in law that an
order of appointment and promotion has to be seen strictly in
accordance with the conditions made in the order and nobody can
go above or behind the order.
The petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment of this
Court in Writ Petition No.23519 of 1996 Vinod Kumar Dubey
Vs. Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies U.P, Agra and
others and has submitted that in such circumstances, this Court
has held that Registrar has got no power to pass the order. The
contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the fact
that it is not a regular promotion but is a time bound promotion of
89 days with a clear indication that the petitioner will be reverted
on the original post immediately after the expiry of the 89 days,
therefore, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the
petitioner are not applicable to the present case.
In view of the aforesaid fact, the writ petition is dismissed.
No order is passed as to costs.
Order Date :- 2.2.2010
V.Sri/-