Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:55682-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 179 of 2025 Appellant :- District Judge, Bhadohi Respondent :- Jitendra Kumar Pandey And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ashish Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satya Prakash Pandey Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. This appeal is by the District Judge, Bhadohi questioning an order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.2.2025, whereby the order passed by the authority concerned dated 5.9.2024 has been stayed and petitioner has been allowed to work on the post on which he was working prior to the issuance of such order. 2. Undisputed facts of the case are that the respondent-petitioner was appointed as a driver in the District Judgeship at Bhadohi in the year 1997. He was subsequently promoted as Junior Assistant and was later promoted to the post of Senior Assistant. He applied for the promotion on the post of Head Assistant and it was at this stage that the orders passed in favour of the respondent were examined and it was found that the services of the respondent-petitioner was governed by the provisions of the U.P. Government Department Driver's Service Rules, 1993. The cadre of driver is a separate cadre and no provision in law existed whereby a driver could be brought in the ministerial cadre or could be promoted in the 20% quota meant for Class-IV employees. The District Judge in such circumstances has come to the conclusion that the promotion of the respondent on clerical cadre and his subsequent promotions were wholly de-horse the rules and consequently the respondent has been repatriated to his parent cadre. For passing such order the authorities have also taken note of the direction issued by the Registrar General of this Court on 9.1.2013, intimating the decision of the Administrative Committee of the Court that cadre of driver being a separate cadre having pay scale of Class-III post does not qualify to be considered for promotion or absorption to other Class- III post. It is this order which is under challenge in the writ. Learned Single Judge while entertaining the writ petition has not only stayed the order under challenge but has allowed the respondent to continue on Class-III post. 3. The order of learned Single Judge is challenged primarily on the ground that the grant of relief to the respondent-petitioner virtually amounts to grant of final relief and the same was impermissible at the stage of interim consideration. It is also submitted that the law is settled that any promotion granted de-horse the rule cannot be allowed to continue unless the basis of such decision itself is struck down. 4. Sri S.P. Pandey, appearing for the respondent-petitioner, on the other hand, states that the learned Single Judge has only protected the status of the appellant which was accorded to him 22 years back and, therefore, grant of interim protection is clearly justified in the facts of the case. 5. We have heard Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the materials on record. 6. It is undisputed that the initial appointment of the respondent was on the post of a driver. The service conditions of the respondent is governed by the Rules of 1993. Whether there existed any provision under which the services of a driver could be brought within the ministerial cadre or he could be promoted as such is an aspect which would require determination in the pending writ. 7. While entertaining the writ petition, learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the respondent-petitioner to continue as this relief could have been granted only at the stage of final disposal of the cause brought before the Writ Court. In such view of the matter, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent the order of the District Judge dated 5.9.2024 has been stayed and the respondent-petitioner has been allowed to continue on the previous post needs to be interfered with. This part of the order of learned Single Judge is, therefore, set aside. 8. Sri Ashish Mishra, appearing for the appellant undertakes that a counter affidavit would be positively filed in the matter within a week. The respondent-petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit within one week, thereafter. 9. Let the matter be listed before the learned Single Judge after two weeks for consideration of cause on merits and in accordance with law. 10. We make it clear that all issues on merits are left open for consideration before the learned Single Judge. 11. Special appeal, consequently, stands disposed of. Order Date :- 16.4.2025 RA Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad