High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Hamid Hussain v. D.I.O.S. And Others - WRIT - A No. 42561 of 1993  RD-AH 11347 (6 July 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42561 of 1993
District Inspector of Schools, Moradabad & others
Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J
Heard Sri M.W. Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel and Sri Irshad Ali, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record.
The petitioner claims that he was appointed as a teacher in the year 1973 in the college of the respondent no. 2/3. He claims to have been confirmed on 1.8.1974. It has been stated in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that in the year 1977 the petitioner had fallen ill and proceeded on medical leave. After his leave was exhausted he was granted leave without pay for certain period. Thereafter his wife fell ill because of which he could not join and he applied for extension of leave.
The petitioner has nowhere stated in the writ petition as to from which date he went on leave and when he recovered from illness; as to from which date his wife fell ill and when she had recovered from illness. What has been stated in paragraph 15 is that he presented himself for joining in 1993 which was after 16 years of his having taken leave initially. In paragraph 16 it has been stated that in July, 1993 he again reminded the Committee of Management to permit him to join but no decision has yet been taken hence this writ petition with the prayer for a direction to the respondents to permit him to join and pay him salary.
The discretion of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can only be exercised in favour of a person to whom injustice is being done, which is not so in the present case. Here, the petitioner, after having worked for only three years, proceeded on leave, which extended to 16 years without sanction, and then returned to join back duties. The writ petition itself has been drafted in a very sketchy manner without giving any proper dates as to from when the petitioner's leave was sanctioned and till which date. Everything has been stated very vaguely.
In the present set of facts this Court would not be inclined to exercise its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner who has defaulted and not joined duties for 16 years. A post cannot be kept vacant for a person for such a long time and he cannot claim, as a matter of right, to join back duties as and when he desires. As such, the prayer made in this writ petition does not deserve to be granted.
This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.