M. Katju, J.@mdashThis writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 15.9.1999 issued by the Education Department of the State
Government,Annexure-15 to the writ petition.
2.Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
3.The Petitioner was selected in Combined State/Upper Subordinate Service Examination,1992.The relevant extracts of the result as published in
the newspaper Rashtriya Sahara dated 6.4.1999 is Annexure-1 to the petition. In para 3 of the writ petition it is stated that at the time of the
interview preference was called for from each of the candidates appearing in the interview. It is alleged that so far as requisition of the Petitioner, he
has given preference for the post of Treasury Officer/Accounts Officer in U.P. Finance and Accounts Service at a higher preference followed by
U.P. Education (General Education Code) Service Group B. On the basis of the recommendation, the Education Department of the
U.P.Government issued order dated 30.1.1997 specifying seven persons including the Petitioner as having been selected for the post of Basic
Shiksha Adhikari vide Annexure-2. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the Petitioner was granted appointment as Basic Shiksha Adhikari by
order dated 10.6.1997 Annexure. The Petitioner assumed charge on 21.6.1997 vide Annexure-4. Since then he is in continuously working as
Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Padrauna to the full and complete satisfaction of the superior authorities. The Petitioner''s name is at serial No. 2 in the
schedule appended to the office order dated 20.9.1998 vide Annexure-5. In paras 10 and 11 of the petition it is stated that promotion from the
post of Basic Shiksha Adhikari is to be made to the post of D.I.O.S. or Regl. Assistant Director. In para 13 it is stated that some candidates
recommended for different posts including U.P.Finance and Accounts Service failed to join on the post for which they were recommended as a
consequence of which reshuffling was done and as a result the Petitioner has been recommended for the post of Treasury Officer/Accounts Officer
and an order dated 4.12.1998 was issued appointing the Petitioner to U.P.Finance and Accounts Service. The Petitioner was required to undergo
training at the Administrative Academy, Nainital vide Annexure-6. By office orders dated 7.12.1998 and 16.1.1999 Annexures-7 and 8 the place
of posting of the Petitioner and other persons were notified. In para 17 it is stated that there did not exist any occasion for granting appointment to
the Petitioner as Treasury Officer/Accounts Officer in view of the fact that the Petitioner had already been appointed as Basic Shiksha Adhikari
and had been working for two and half years. The Petitioner protested against the order vide representation dated 6.2.1999 vide Annexure-9. By
order dated 26.5.1999, the Principal Secretary, U.P. Government cancelled the appointment and candidature of the Petitioner vide Annexure-10.
The Petitioner submitted representation dated 27.5.1999 before the Principal Secretary vide Annexure-11. The D. M. Kushi Nagar also made
recommendation on 25.6.1999 vide Annexure-12. Copy of the representation of the Petitioner dated 19.6.1999 before the Director of Education
(Basic) dated 19.6.1999 is Annexure-13. However, on 27.9.1999 an order was issued by the Principal Secretary whereby earlier order dated
26.5.1999 was maintained and representation of the Petitioner was rejected. True copy of the order dated 21.7.1999 is Annexure-14. By the
impugned order dated 15.9.1999 issued by the Education Department the Petitioner was relieved from the Education Department for joining at
Finance Department vide Annexure-15. Hence, this writ petition.
4.A counter-affidavit has been filed.In para 4 it is stated that due to non-joining of some other selected candidates there was reshuffling and in this
way the Petitioner who was allotted as per his fifth preference, had been readjusted according to his respective merit in the combined merit list In
this reshuffling the Petitioner was reallotted the post of Treasury/ Accounts Officer which was his higher (fourth) preference as indicated in his
preference sheet. The preference sheet of the Petitioner is Annexure-C.A.-1. In para 10 it is stated that the reshuffling was done within time
according to the Government order dated 31.1.1994 Annexure-C.A. 2. The preference once given cannot be altered. In our opinion since the
Petitioner has been given the post of his fourth preference it cannot be understood why he is insisting on the post of his fifth preference. The
Petitioner has been given higher preference as per his own choice and he cannot have any grievance. The writ petition is dismissed. However, since
the Petitioner has been working in the Education Department for many years the Government may consider his request for being retained in the
Education Department.