Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Sunil Kumar v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. - 18099 of 1998 [2007] RD-AH 16921 (25 October 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).


Court No. 26

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18099 of1998

Sunil Kumar


State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Sunil Kumar has filed present writ petition questioning the validity of the order 31.1.1987 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sardhana, District Meerut, whereby his services has been dispensed with by giving one month salary in liue of the notice, describing him as temporary Lekhpal and his services are not required.

Petitioner after being accorded training from Lekhpal School, by means of letter dated 9.2.1980 sent by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar was asked to report for duty so that order for his appointment are passed. Pursuant to the same, petitioner claimed that he was offered appointment and started performing and discharging his duty and thereafter was transferred to District Meerut. Petitioner has contended that he continuously worked and thereafter, he proceeded for three days medical leave. Thereafter, he fell seriously ill and could not join the duty and then he came to know that his services have been dispensed with, at this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

In the counter affidavit categorical mention has been made that petitioner remained absent without information from duty and for this he has been placed under suspension. Petitioner was put for confirmation test where he was not considered fit for confirmation, in this background as per terms and conditions of the appointment letter, services has been dispensed with.

Rejoinder affidavit has been filed rebutting the statement of facts mentioned in the counter affidavit and reiterating the statement of facts mentioned in the writ petition details have been given.

After pleadings mentioned above, have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing/disposal with the consent of the parties.

Sri C.S. Chaturvedi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case petitioner had been validly appointed as Lekhpal and performed his duty to the best of his ability and as such his services could not have been dispensed with in the way and manner as has been done in the present case without providing opportunity of hearing, as such writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that petitioner was not confirmed, as he was temporary employee and as per terms and conditions of the appointment, his services has been dispensed with, as such no interference is required.

After respective arguments have been advanced, undisputed factual position, which is emerging in the present case is that in paragraph no. 5 of the writ petition, petitioner has mentioned that test was conducted for confirming the petitioner on the permanent post, which the petitioner successfully qualified. This statement of fact has been seriously disputed in the counter affidavit filed as in paragraph no.7 of the counter affidavit , categorical mention has been made that in the said confirmation test, petitioner was not found fit for confirmation. Said statement of fact has not been disputed in the rejoinder affidavit and thus, petitioner has accepted this fact that he was not confirmed employee. Once petitioner was not confirmed employee and continued to function as temporary employee, then without casting any stigma, once competent authority has taken decision to dispense with the service of petitioner as per terms and conditions of the appointment, no interference whatsoever is permissible, while exercising the authority of the judicial review.

Consequently, writ petition is dismissed.

No order as to cost.




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


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 |

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