Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

TEJ KANWAR SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Tej Kanwar Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 4796 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 1563 (31 January 2007)

 

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. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4796 of 2007

Tej Kanwar Singh

Versus

State of U.P and others

Hon'ble V.K.Shukla,J.

Petitioner had been performing and discharging duties as Food Clerk in Food Adulteration Department and petitioner's duty has been sought to be changed by according placement at Kustha Niyantrak Ekai, Muzaffarnagar vide order dated 27.11.2006. Against the same present writ petition has been filed.

Contention of the petitioner is that in consonance with the judgment and order passed by Division Bench of this Court dated 26.05.2004 it has been held that Health Inspectors(Health Supervisors Male) are not entitled in any manner to be designated as Food Inspectors in absence of any provision either under the Services Rules 1992 or the Government Orders dated 23.07.1981 and 25.02.1983. Petitioner has contended that said Division Bench judgment was being flouted and in this background when report was called by him he submitted report against Sri B.S. Yadav and Sri Rajendra Kumar Singh. Petitioner has contended that based on the said report dated 23.09.2006 order was passed and as Sri B.S. Yadav and Sri Rajendra Kumar Singh were not competent as such one Sri Rakesh Kumar Sakariyam and Sri V.K. Rathi were assigned to perform and discharge duties of Food Inspector. Petitioner has contended that Sri B.S. Yadav is relative of Smt. Neera Yadav, as such political pressure has been exerted, and order dated 23.09.2006 has been cancelled. Petitioner submits that as he has submitted report, he has been sought to be removed.

Fact of the present clearly reflects that as far as petitioner is concerned petitioner has been adjusted within the district and only his counter has been changed from Food Adulteration Department to Kustha Niyantrak Ekai, Muzaffarnagar. Placement which has been accorded to petitioner is within the district and said placement has been made in consonance with the Government Order dated 25.08.2006. Transfer and post are within the domain of the authorities concerned and it is for the authority to see, as to when an incumbent is to be placed/posted and where his services are to be utilized.

Consequently as adjustment has been made within the District, there is no scope to interfere with the impugned order in any manner whatsoever. However it is made clear that Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarnagar shall ensure compliance of Division Bench judgment in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Babu Lal Gupta and others decided on 26.05.2004 and incumbent who do not fulfill criteria provided therein shall not be permitted to function as Food Inspector.

Consequently writ petition lacks substance and same is dismissed.

31st Jan.2007

Dhruv


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.