Bhola Nath Nai Vs. State of U.P. and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....the murder charge. [para 9] it is clear that pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. the finding of the trial court and the appellate court in that behalf is correct. for this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10] it is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under section 304b, ipc with the aid of section 113b, indian evidence act but also the offence under section 201, ipc. [para 15] held: we have gone through the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court carefully and we find that both the courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. we, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16].....the rules of promotion.3. learned counsel for the respondent contends that the petitioner cannot be promoted as a class iii employee. as a matter of fact his next higher post of promotion is at of head cook/follower. for this reliance has been placed on the uttar pradesh police group 'd' employees service rules, 2009, dated 28.9.2009. rule 20 thereof prescribes the mode of promotion to the next higher post where an employee can be considered for promotion after completion of 16 years of satisfactory service. the promotion has to be made within the same establishment from amongst the eligible candidates through selection by a selection committee.4. the fact that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1983 indicates that the petitioner has been continuing in service for the past 27 years and, therefore, he has crossed the barrier of 16 years provided for making him eligible for promotion.5. the aforesaid fact should be examined by the respondent authority in case the petitioner is found eligible for consideration of the aforesaid promotion under rule 20 of the aforesaid rules.6. the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 4, who shall examine the claim.....

Judgment:

ORDER

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Counsel for the respondent-State.

2. The petitioner claims that he may be promoted on a class III post as he has been working as a Cook/Follower for the past 28 years under the Rules of promotion.

3. Learned Counsel for the respondent contends that the petitioner cannot be promoted as a class III employee. As a matter of fact his next higher post of promotion is at of Head Cook/Follower. For this reliance has been placed on the Uttar Pradesh Police Group 'D' Employees Service Rules, 2009, dated 28.9.2009. Rule 20 thereof prescribes the mode of promotion to the next higher post where an employee can be considered for promotion after completion of 16 years of satisfactory service. The promotion has to be made within the same establishment from amongst the eligible candidates through selection by a Selection Committee.

4. The fact that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1983 indicates that the petitioner has been continuing in service for the past 27 years and, therefore, he has crossed the barrier of 16 years provided for making him eligible for promotion.

5. The aforesaid fact should be examined by the respondent authority in case the petitioner is found eligible for consideration of the aforesaid promotion under Rule 20 of the aforesaid Rules.

6. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 4, who shall examine the claim of the petitioner and in case the petitioner is found eligible the respondent No. 4 shall proceed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with Rules as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.

7. With the aforesaid directions the writ petition is disposed of.