Court No. - 24 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 564 of 2010 Petitioner :- Ramji Tripathi S/O Hari Shanker Tripathi & Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Agriculture & Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- N.K. Pandey Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma,J.
Issue notice.
Notice on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 to 3 has been accepted by
learned Chief Standing Counsel, who prays for and is accorded six
weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed
within next four weeks.
List immediately thereafter along with writ petition No.294 of 2009 (SS).
According to the petitioners, the petitioners are the member of
Subordinate Agriculture Service Group-III, Class II employees and
according to rules, petitioners are entitled to be promoted to
Subordinate Agriculture Service Group-II insofar as according to Rules,
the members of Subordinate Agriculture Service Group-III who have
completed five years continuance service, are entitled to be promoted to
Group-II and the members of Subordinate Agriculture Service Group-II,
who have completed five years continuance service, are entitled to be
promoted to Grade-I but on the basis of the impugned seniority list
dated 12.1.2009, 3.3.2009, 20.5.2009 and 22.6.2009, the opposite
parties have prepared the eligibility lists for making promotions on the
existing vacancies all of which belong to unreserved category and the
scheduled casts are placed enblock at the top in the impugned seniority
list and the reservation quota is already full and as such, the said SC/ST
persons have been included in the eligibility lists of the general category
posts of Office Superintending, Senior Assistant (4500-7000) and Senior
Assistant (4000-6000) and as such, the existing unreserved vacancies
will come to be occupied by the SC/ST in additional to the 21+2% posts
already occupied by them. Thus, the aforesaid act is precisely the kind
of excessiveness and reverse discrimination which the law does not
permit while granting the benefits under Article 16(4-A) of the
Constitution of India.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier similarly situated
persons have filed a writ petition, while was numbered as writ petition
294 (SS) of 2009 [Bal Mukund Srivastava and others versus State of
U.P. and others] and this Court, vide order dated 27.1.2009, as an
interim measure, provided that till the next date of listing, the promotions
shall not be made on the basis of final seniority list dated 22.12.2008
and as such, the benefit of the order dated 27.1.2009 may also be
extended to the petitioner of the instant writ petition, to which learned
Standing Counsel does not dispute.
In view of the above, till the next date of listing, promotions shall not be
made on the basis of the final seniority list dated 22.12.2008.
Order Date :- 2.2.2010
Ajit/-