HC QUASHES SENIORITY LIST OF PROMOTEE POLICE INSPECTORS
LUCKNOW: The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has quashed the state government order (GO) of July 7, 2015 whereby seniority was given to the out-of-turn promotee inspectors of UP police on ex-cadre posts.
It also quashed a consequential order of July 29, 2015 for giving one-time seniority to 990 nongazetted police officials, who were given out-of-turn promotion between 1994 and 2014. The court also junked seniority list dated February 24, 2016.
The court directed the state-respondents to prepare a fresh seniority list within two months in accordance with Rule 22 (3) of the 2015 Rules.
The respondents also asked to assign seniority to the promotees of ex-cadre posts from the date when their immediate juniors were promoted to the posts of the inspector in accordance with the service rules against cadre posts. After preparing the seniority list as directed, consequential orders in respect of promotions etc are directed to be issued, the court said.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh passed the judgment allowing three writ petitions filed by 15 regularly promoted police inspectors from the cadre of subinspectors, including Mahanth Yadav.
Petitioners had challenged the said GO, the consequential order and also the seniority list dated 24.02.2016 whereby the persons junior to them in the feeder cadre of sub-inspector were given out-of-turn promotions on ex cadre posts and assigned seniority much above them.
Seniority of these ex- cadre promotee sub-inspectors had been determined in pursuance of the GO dated July 23, 2015.
The petitioners submitted that since they were senior in the feeder cadre of sub-inspector to the inspectors given out-of-turn promotion on ex-cadre posts, they should had been assigned the seniority above the private respondents and similar other inspectors who were promoted in pursuance of GO dated February 3,1994 against ex-cadre posts.
On the other hand, the state counsel contended that the impugned seniority list had been prepared in pursuance of the 2015 Rules and Rule 22 (4)specifically provided that seniority in some special cases determined according to previously determined policy would remain unchanged.
MANOJ KUMAR SINGH