Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS versus U.P. SARV SIKSHA ABHIYAN THRU' ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ashok Kumar Gupta And Others v. U.P. Sarv Siksha Abhiyan Thru' Its Project Director & Ors. - WRIT - A No. 20937 of 2003 [2006] RD-AH 6716 (28 March 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.26

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 20937 OF 2003

Ashok Kumar Gupta and others

Versus

Uttar Pradesh Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan and others.

------

HON. SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

The petitioners are permitted to implead Union of India as respondent no.7 to the present writ petition.

This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to work as Junior Engineer of district- Shahjahanpur in Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan till its completion and pay the salary and allowances regularly.

The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners were engaged as Junior Engineers to supervise the constructions including the school building. After their selection in the UPDPEP-II Programme, by G.O. dated 26.5.1998 the State Government has decided that all the construction work in DPEP-II Programme shall be supervised by the engineers of Rural Engineering Service and Minor Irrigation Department of the State Government for which the engineers will be provided extra remuneration. Admittedly the petitioners were engaged on contract basis for Shahjahanpur district. Initially the engagement of the petitioners was for a period of one year but subsequently that was made for a period of three months, therefore, aggrieved persons approached this Court and obtained the interim order and they were permitted to continue till the end of the Scheme. Admittedly the project in which the petitioners were given appointment came to an end in June 1983. Then the Ministry of Human Resources advised the existing Societies made under the scheme to utilize the DPEP staff for Sarv Shikha Abhiyan scheme to work in these districts. It has been alleged that the said scheme is in continuation of the Scheme which has exhausted in the month of June 2002 but the petitioners in spite of the letter of the Ministry of Human Resources have not been engaged and permitted to continue therefore, they filed the present writ petition before this Court and this Court while entertaining the writ petition has passed a detailed and reasoned order rejecting the prayer for stay vide its order dated 6.1.2004.

Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. The petitioners submit that the letter of the Ministry of Human Resources has to be complied with and the petitioners are entitled to continue in Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan but the respondents have not engaged the petitioners. A supplementary affidavit has been filed and in various paragraphs it has been stated that the various writ petitions were filed before the Lucknow Bench and the court after hearing the parties has passed a detailed order permitting those petitioners to be engaged and continued under the aforesaid scheme taking into consideration the letter of the Ministry of Human Resources and Development. Special Appeal No. 67 of 2004 was filed against the said order and the said special appeal was also dismissed. Then aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 25.2.2004 Special Leave Petitioner No. 9118 of 2004 was filed before the Apex Court but the same has already been dismissed. In such a situation the petitioners submit that they are  entitled for interim order and are not entitled to continue under  the said scheme. Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1995 (Supplement) (1) SCC 461 Vishnu Traders vs. State of Haryana and has submitted that the Apex Court has held that if  interim order has been passed in the case involving similar controversy the petitioners are also entitled to get the interim order.

I have heard Sri Mool Behari Saxena, the learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri K.S. Shukla who appears for the respondents and have perused the record. Admittedly, the appointment /engagement of the petitioners were under a particular scheme and the scheme has admittedly come to an end and the appointment of the petitioners was on contract basis therefore, the question for consideration before this Court is as to whether in such a situation if subsequently, the petitioners have not been engaged, this Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and whether this Court can issue a writ of mandamus to engage the petitioners  under the said scheme. Admittedly, the petitioners have not approached the authorities either to the Central Government or to the State Government for their grievances. Therefore, in view of the well-settled principles of law no writ of mandamus can be issued unless and until there is a request. But taking into the facts and circumstances of the present case as another scheme has been sponsored and the Ministry of Human Resources has already issued a circular that the persons who were engaged in earlier scheme should be engaged or should be considered for continuing in the subsequent project, therefore, I feel that if the petitioners approach respondents no 6 and 7, the Respondent no.6 shall consider the claims of the petitioners in view of the circular issued by the Central Government and will pass a detailed and reasoned order according to law within two months.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

28.3.2006

V.Sri/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.