HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 4526 of 2009 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Mrs. Durga Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Abhishek Srivastava, Advocate for respondents. 2. Petitioner has claimed that after going through the procedure prescribed, i.e., written test and interview, for promotion from the post of Technical Grade-II to Junior Engineer of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., a category wise merit list of Operating to J.E. (Promotion) UPPCL (Departmental) Year 2004 was prepared where he was placed at Serial No. 985. The list was comprised of total 1052 employees. 3. This writ petition was filed in the year 2009. In writ petition it was not mentioned that between 2004 to 2009 how many employees were promoted from the said seniority list, therefore, it was not on record that petitioner was prejudice or likely to prejudice by any subsequent event. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Naveen Shukla, Hemant Kumar Rai, Sanjay Kumar Singh, V.K. Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Archana Mishra, J.P. Pandey, Sandeep Kumar Srivastava Umesh Chandra Pandey .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Others .....Respondent(s) 4. The writ petition was filed on ground that in the year 2007, by an Order dated 06.11.2008, Regulation 17 of U.P. State Electricity Board Subordinate Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Service Regulations, 1972 was amended and earlier provision for the purpose of promotion, i.e., conducting written examination and interview, was replaced by determining a seniority list on basis of granting marks out of maximum 100 on basis of educational qualifications, experience as well as 10 marks were provided for interview. It is further case of petitioner that on basis of amended provision, a fresh seniority list was prepared, however, the same is not on record, though challenged in writ petition. It is not much disputed that petitioner was also a part of said seniority list but his serial number is not on record. 5. As referred above, since name of petitioner was also mentioned in fresh seniority list and admittedly during pendency of this writ petition, in the year 2022, petitioner was promoted on the post of Junior Engineer on basis of said subsequent seniority list. 6. Even at this stage, learned counsel for petitioner is not able to show that what prejudice was caused to petitioner, since as per Regulation 16 (Unamended), the earlier seniority list was comprised of 1052 employees, was required to be first exhausted but there is no detail of promoted employees between 2004 to 2008 and that number of employees mentioned in said list would definitely are part of subsequent seniority list prepared on basis of amended provision also. None of other employee is before this Court. Even any promoted employee is not made party in present writ petition. Therefore, also there is a legal impediment. 7. This Court has passed following order on 29.01.2009: WRIA No. 4526 of 2009 2 "Shri J.P. Pandey has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 5. Learned standing counsel appears for respondent no.1. The respondents are granted four weeks to file counter affidavit. The petitioner will have one week thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. List on 18.3.2009. It is contended that the promotions for the post of Junior Engineers were held and that the promotion list was published on 24.2.2005, and that before exhausting the select list the respondents are, in pursuance of the amend ments in Regulation 17, dated 6.11.2008, making promotions from a joint seniority list. As an interim measure, it is provided that the promotions may be given effect to but that the promotion of last candidate in general category shall be subject to the result of the writ petition." 8. Aforesaid interim order has also lost its efficacy since now the promotions are made on basis of new seniority list, though impugned, but not on record. Admittedly, petitioner has taken advantage of fresh seniority list since he is now promoted. Therefore, it appears that on one hand petitioner has challenged fresh seniority list but on other than he has taken advantage of it. In such circumstances, it would be a case that petitioner wants to travel in two boats simultaneously, which is not possible. WRIA No. 4526 of 2009 3 9. Learned counsel for petitioner is not able to show how petitioner is prejudice since number of employees already promoted, out of first seniority list are not on record. Yearwise number of vacancies are also not on record. Therefore, since petitioner has now been promoted and enjoying his service on promoted post, the relief sought in this writ petition is in fact become meaningless. 10. In view of above, I do not find any reason to interfere. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. September 22, 2025 AK WRIA No. 4526 of 2009 4 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad