High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Nand Lal Pandey v. Sachiv Urban Bank - WRIT - A No. 29732 of 1990  RD-AH 13301 (1 August 2007)
Court No. 26
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29732 of 1990
Nand Lal Pandey Vs. Sachiv/General Manager, Ghazipur
Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The petitioner claims that he was initially appointed on 31.7.1989 on a class IV post. Since he was not being permitted to work, the petitioner filed this writ petition with a prayer for a direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from terminating his services except in accordance with law. By an order dated 11.12.1990 passed by this Court, as an interim measure, it was provided that the services of the petitioner would not be dispensed with except in accordance with law and after following the procedure prescribed. In the counter affidavit the respondents annexed an order dated 29.9.1990 (which was prior to the passing of the interim order in this writ petition) by which the services of the petitioner had already been dispensed with. An amendment application had been filed which was also allowed. In the said amendment application the only prayer made was that "it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the present amendment application and treat it as main part of the writ petition". The amendment application did not contain any averment or prayer challenging the subsequent order passed by the respondents on 29.9.1990. In the supplementary affidavit the said facts were brought on record by the petitioner in which permission to add certain grounds and prayer had been made. No such amendment has been incorporated in the writ petition, meaning thereby that the order dated 29.9.1990 is not under challenge. Even if the same is taken as an order impugned in this writ petition, a perusal of the appointment letter clearly shows that the initial appointment was given to the petitioner on probation. It was made only on an application filed by the petitioner, without the post having been advertised or without the other eligible candidate having been given opportunity to be appointed on such post. The work and conduct of the petitioner was not found suitable and in fact on the contrary it was found by the respondents that the petitioner had misbehaved and when he was given an opportunity to explain his conduct, he told the officials that he was not interested in the job and did not give any explanation. There is no denial of the same by the petitioner.
In view of the fact that the petitioner was given appointment without following the procedure and only on an application made by him which was merely on probation and not in regular course, I do not find any good ground for interference with this writ petition.
This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to cost.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.