# Dileep Kumar Gupta & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 1212
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-05-23
- **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala, Vinod Kumar Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dileep-kumar-gupta-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43768
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Service Law - Promotion - Assistant Regional Transport Officer (A.R.T.O.) - Promotional Source
Categories - Quota Distribution - Seniority Dispute - Effect of Interim Orders: - Under Rule 5, U.P.
Transport Services Rules, 1990 (as amended up to Fourth Amendment, 2013), 49% of A.R.T.O. cadre posts
were to be filled by promotion from Passenger/Goods Tax Officers and Regional Inspectors (Technical) -
Direction in earlier writ (09-12-2014) to forward names of both categories for DPC attained finality - Noncompliance led to filing of contempt and subsequent forwarding of names.
5 All. Dileep Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

1213
- Cadre merger under G.O. dated 03-05-2011 led to issuance of seniority list; same challenged in separate
writ before Lucknow Bench; interim stay of seniority list (24-11-2015) stalled promotional process only vis-àvis Passenger/Goods Tax Officers.

- Modification order (10-12-2015) in said pending writ permitted promotions of Regional Inspectors
(Technical) alone to proceed, leaving vacancies for Passenger/Goods Tax Officers subject to further orders -
Consequently, final direction dated 09-12-2014 was rendered inoperative in respect of Passenger/Goods Tax
Officers.

Subsequent Fifth Amendment Rules, 2016 (11-04-2016) further bifurcated the earlier 49% quota: 24%
for Passenger/Goods Tax Officers and 25% for Regional Inspectors (Technical) - In view thereof, Court
found no reason to interdict promotion process in favour of Regional Inspectors (Technical) within their quota.

Judicial Discipline - Coordinate Bench - Clarification/Modification: High Court declined to clarify or
override interim order of coordinate Bench - Proper remedy for aggrieved Passenger/Goods Tax Officers is to
seek clarification/modification before the same Bench in pending writ (Vijay Kishore Anand case).

Held: Writ petition disposed of granting liberty to petitioners to apply for clarification/modification of interim
order dated 10-12-2015 before Lucknow Bench; no interference warranted with promotion of Regional
Inspectors (Technical) to the extent of their 25% quota post-amendment.

## Text

1212 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
16. The question as to whether the condition imposed of not possessing intermediate
qualification is valid or violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India may not be gone into at the
instance of petitioner, as no challenge has been laid to it by the petitioner before applying for the
post, and it is only when petitioner was found to have suppressed material facts and an action as per
law has been taken that petitioner has now challenged relevant clause of the advertisement. In case
such a challenge is entertained, it might otherwise infringe Article 16 of the Constitution of India,
as similarly placed persons may not have applied for the post, knowing that they were ineligible,
but the petitioner would be rewarded for making a false disclosure. This Court may not be justified
in coming to the rescue of petitioner at the cost of denial of equal opportunity to other similarly
placed applicant. The bank would also be justified in taking an action against the petitioner, as a
person who can make a false disclosure at the stage of entry into the service itself, may not be
reliable during course of employment as well, and apprehension expressed by the employers of loss
of confidence cannot be lightly brushed aside.

17. In view of the judgment of the division bench of this Court in Ritesh Kumar Mishra
(supra), I am of the opinion that petitioner is not entitled to grant of any relief by this Court.

18. Writ petition, consequently, fails and is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA , J.
THE HON'BLE VINOD KUMAR MISRA, J.

Writ A No.- 23084 Of 2016

Dileep Kumar Gupta & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Hridai Narain Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., M.D. Singh Shekher, Nisheeth Yadav

Service Law - Promotion - Assistant Regional Transport Officer (A.R.T.O.) - Promotional Source
Categories - Quota Distribution - Seniority Dispute - Effect of Interim Orders: - Under Rule 5, U.P.
Transport Services Rules, 1990 (as amended up to Fourth Amendment, 2013), 49% of A.R.T.O. cadre posts
were to be filled by promotion from Passenger/Goods Tax Officers and Regional Inspectors (Technical) -
Direction in earlier writ (09-12-2014) to forward names of both categories for DPC attained finality - Noncompliance led to filing of contempt and subsequent forwarding of names.
5 All. Dileep Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

1213
- Cadre merger under G.O. dated 03-05-2011 led to issuance of seniority list; same challenged in separate
writ before Lucknow Bench; interim stay of seniority list (24-11-2015) stalled promotional process only vis-àvis Passenger/Goods Tax Officers.

- Modification order (10-12-2015) in said pending writ permitted promotions of Regional Inspectors
(Technical) alone to proceed, leaving vacancies for Passenger/Goods Tax Officers subject to further orders -
Consequently, final direction dated 09-12-2014 was rendered inoperative in respect of Passenger/Goods Tax
Officers.

Subsequent Fifth Amendment Rules, 2016 (11-04-2016) further bifurcated the earlier 49% quota: 24%
for Passenger/Goods Tax Officers and 25% for Regional Inspectors (Technical) - In view thereof, Court
found no reason to interdict promotion process in favour of Regional Inspectors (Technical) within their quota.

Judicial Discipline - Coordinate Bench - Clarification/Modification: High Court declined to clarify or
override interim order of coordinate Bench - Proper remedy for aggrieved Passenger/Goods Tax Officers is to
seek clarification/modification before the same Bench in pending writ (Vijay Kishore Anand case).

Held: Writ petition disposed of granting liberty to petitioners to apply for clarification/modification of interim
order dated 10-12-2015 before Lucknow Bench; no interference warranted with promotion of Regional
Inspectors (Technical) to the extent of their 25% quota post-amendment.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.
&
 Hon'ble Vinod Kumar Misra, J.)

1. We have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate along with Sri H.N.Pandey,
the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.D.Singh Shekher, the learned Senior Advocate
along with Sri M.M.Sharma, the learned counsel for respondent no.5, the learned Standing Counsel
for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Rajeev Misra, the learned counsel appearing for the Uttar
Pradesh Public Service Commission, respondent no.3.

2. Seven Passenger Tax Superintendents, who were subsequently promoted as Passenger
Tax Officer, and another person directly appointed as Passenger Tax Officer filed writ petition no.
60185 of 2014 praying that their names should be forwarded for consideration for promotion on the
post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer (A.R.T.O.). This Court by a judgment dated
09.12.2014 after considering all aspects, especially Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Transport Service
(Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2013, which indicated that 49% of the post of A.R.T.O. could be filled
up by promotion from those persons, who were substantially appointed as Passenger/Goods Tax
Officers and Regional Inspectors(Technical) directed the State Government to forward the list of
Passenger/Goods Tax Officers to the Commission to consider their case for promotion to the post
of A.R.T.O. The Court made it clear that the list of Regional Inspectors (Technical), which had
already been forwarded by the State Government to the Commission would be considered by the
Commission together with the list of Passenger/Goods Tax Officers.

3. Since the said direction was not complied with, a Contempt Application no. 4348 of
2015, Sri Narain Tripathi and 07 others Vs. Sri Arvind Singh Deo, Principal Secretary and
1214 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
another was filed, in which an affidavit of compliance was filed indicating that the names of the
Goods/Passenger Tax Officer had been forwarded by the Government by letter dated 16.09.2015.

4. In the meanwhile, the posts of Goods/Passenger Tax Superintendent and Assistant
Regional Inspector (Technical) was merged with the post of Goods/Passenger Tax Officer and
Regional Inspector (Technical) respectively by the Government Order dated 03.05.2011. Based on
this Government Order, a seniority list was prepared, which was challenged by certain Passenger
Tax Officers before the Lucknow Bench being Writ Petition no. 1802 of 2015, Vijay Kishore
Anand And Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. through Principal Secretary in which an interim order
dated 24.11.2015 was passed staying the final seniority list of Passenger Tax/Goods Tax Officers.

5. As a result of this interim order, the promotion to the post of A.R.T.O. came to a stand
still. The Regional Inspectors (Technical) moved a modification application in the instant writ
petition, which was duly considered and an order dated 10.12.2015 was passed. The Court after
considering the order of the writ Court dated 09.12.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 60158 of
2014, Sri Narain Tripathi And 7 Ors. Vs. State of U.P. And Another modified its order dated
24.11.2015 by an order dated 10.12.2015 observing as under:

"Looking to the facts that about 29 post of the A.R.T.O. are vacant and the
Government pursuant to the order passed by this court at Allahabad on 09.12.2014 in writ petition
no. 60158 of 2014 had proceeded to consider their promotion, it had forwarded a list to the State
Public Services Commission, who had fixed the date for holding a Departmental Promotion
Committee, but due to interim order dated 24.11.2015passed by this Court in the present writ
petition, the same has been deferred.

Since the seniority as well as eligibility of Regional Inspectors is not disputed by
anybody including the petitioner, we feel it appropriate to observe that the Government may
proceed to consider the promotion of Regional Inspectors to the post of A.R.T.O. leaving the
vacancies for Passenger/Goods Tax Officer to the ratio of their quota, which shall be subject to
further order of this Court.

Two weeks further time as prayed by learned Chief Standing Counsel is allowed to
file counter affidavit."

6. The Writ Court directed that since the seniority as well as eligibility of the Regional
Inspectors was not in dispute, the Court directed the Government to consider the promotion of
Regional Inspectors to the post of A.R.T.O. and the promotion of Passenger/Goods Tax Officer to
the ratio of their quota would be subject to further orders of the Court.

7. Based on this interim order dated 10.12.2015, the final order dated 09.12.2014, came to
a stand still. The compliance affidavit filed by the State in Contempt proceedings indicating that
they have complied with the orders by forwarding the names of Passenger Tax Officers vide letter
dated 16.09.2015 also come to a stand still.
5 All. Yogendra Singh & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

1215
8. As a result of the interim order dated 10.12.2015, only the names of the Regional
Inspectors are being considered for promotion to the post of A.R.T.O. The petitioners contend that
they are not covered by the dispute raised by Passenger Tax Officer in Writ Petition No. 1802 of
2015 but are not being considered for promotion. Consequently, the present writ petition.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, we find that the State
Government has further amended Rule 5 of the U.P. Transport Services Rules, 1990 by 5th
Amendment Rules, 2016 on 11.04.2016, whereby the 49% promotion from Passenger/Goods Tax
Officers and Regional Inspectors (Technical) has further been bifurcated, namely, 24% would be
filled up by promotion from substantively appointed Passenger/Goods Tax Officers and 25% by
promotion through the Commission from amongst the substantively appointed Regional Inspectors
(Technical).

10. In the light of this amendment, we see no justification in interfering with the process of
promotion of Regional Inspectors(Technical) being considered to the extent of their quota for the
post of A.R.T.O.

11. In so far as the petitioners are concerned, their post for A.R.T.O. is confined to 24% by
promotion under the amended Rules dated 11.04.2016. Their claim is not being considered on
account of the interim order dated 10.12.2015 passed by Lucknow Bench of this Court in Writ
Petition No.1802 of 2015,Vijay Kishore Anand And Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., even
though, there is specific final direction of the Writ Court in Writ Petition No. 60158 of 2014.

12. In our opinion judicial discipline restrains us from clarifying any order of the
coordinate Bench of this court. We are of the opinion that the appropriate remedy for the petitioners
is to move an appropriate application for clarification and/or for further orders in Writ Petition No.
1802 of 2015 and for modification of the order dated 10.12.2015.

13. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH BAGHEL, J.

Writ A No.- 23639 Of 2016

Yogendra Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners: