Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48087 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8473 of 2025 Petitioner :- Dr. Reetesh Kumar Rai Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Education U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Pati Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1, Mr. Syed Mohd. Haider Rizvi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Mr. Rishi Raj, learned counsel for opposite party no.3 whose power filed today is taken on record. 2. In view of order being passed, notices to opposite party no.4 stand dispensed with. 3. Petition has been filed challenging the result dated 30.05.2025 for selection of opposite party no.3 by holding the entire Selection illegal. Further prayer for a direction to appoint petitioner on the post of Joint Director has also been sought. 4. On 31.07.2025, the following order had been passed: "1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite party no.1 and Mr. Syed Mohammad Haider Rizvi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 whose power filed today is taken on record. 2. Petition has been filed challenging the entire selection process adopted by opposite parties for purposes of selection on the posts of Additional Director and Joint Director under the opposite party no.2. 3. It is submitted that earlier an advertisement was issued dated 13.01.2025 for selection on the aforesaid posts in which petitioner has also applied. He has, thereafter, adverted to Annexures no. 2 and 3 to submit that the opposite parties no. 3 and 4, who despite not having applied for such selection, have been granted ad hoc appointment on the aforesaid posts, which is contrary to these rules. 4. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 on the basis of instructions submits that during the course of selection process, upon certain queries being raised by the State Government, the selection process was kept in abeyance but in view of exigencies of work, opposite parties no. 3 and 4 have been appointed on ad hoc post on the aforesaid posts. 5. With regard to such submissions, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 is required to seek instructions as to the reason why regular selection could not be completed on the aforesaid posts and under which provision of law, opposite partis no.3 and 4 have been granted ad hoc appointment on the aforesaid posts. 6. List this case on 06.08.2025, as fresh showing the name of Mr. Syed Mohammad Haider Rizvi as learned counsel for opposite parties." 5. In pursuance thereof, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has been provided written instructions dated 05.08.2025, a copy of which is taken on record and as per which, it is submitted that appointment of opposite parties no.3 on the post of Joint Director is only on an officiating basis and is not in fact a direct recruitment or even ad hoc promotion. 6. It is submitted that although proceedings have been initiated for purposes of regular promotion on the said post but the same is still pending consideration in view of certain queries which were raised by State Government and regular promotion shall be held shortly and it is only to mitigate the administrative problem that opposite parties no.3 has been given officiating charge of the said post in the interregnum. It is further submitted that the post of joint Directors are required to be filled up through promotion as per Service Rules and therefore there was no question of issuing any advertisement for recruitment on the said post. It is submitted that in case petitioner is eligible in terms of Service Regulations for promotion on the said posts, his case would definitely be considered. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for opposite parties with the submission that the letter dated 13.01.2025 appended as Annexure No.1 to the Writ Petition clearly indicates recruitment on the said post. It is submitted that opposite parties no.3 & 4 even otherwise are ineligible for holding the post of Joint Directors since they do not fulfill the minimum eligibility criteria. 8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, particularly the letter dated 13.01.2025, it is evident that the same indicates criteria for appointment on two posts of Joint Director of the Department. Evidently promotion is the only criteria for filling on the said posts. It is not the case of petitioner that any Departmental Promotion Committee was ever held ignoring petitioner's claim. In fact the petition itself has been drafted as if the post are required to be filled up by direct recruitment. The said premise itself is erroneous. 9. It is also evident that proceeding for promotion on the said post had been initiated but has not yet been completed and in view of administrative exigencies, opposite party no.3 & 4 have been appointed given officiating charges of the said post. 10. In view thereof, this Court does not find occasion to grant any indulgence at this stage. Direction however is issued to opposite parties no.1 and 2 expeditiously to conclude proceedings for regular promotion on the said post of Joint Directors instead of continuing with officiating arrangement. 11. With the aforesaid directions, writ petition fails and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Subodh/- Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench