Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARI KESH PRATAP SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Hari Kesh Pratap Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 19630 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 2435 (14 February 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. 19630 of 2006

Hari Kesh Pratap Singh

Versus

State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Petitioner, pursuant to advertisement dated 06.02.1992 issued by Director, Printing and Stationary, U.P. Allahabad, applied for consideration of his candidature for the post of Photo Centre Operator, claimng exemption from requisite eligibility criteria prescribed, as per condition No. 5 of the aforesaid advertisement. Petitioner was selected, offered appointment on 24.10.1992, and was sought to be posted as Photo Centre Operator at Government Press Roorkee, now in the State of Uttaranchal. On 24.11.2001, Director, Printing and Stationary, U.P. Allahabad, issued show cause notice, objecting to the qualification possessed by the petitioner. Petitioner submitted reply on 26.02.2002. Thereafter, on 25.03.2006 order has been passed dispensing with the services of petitioner, in exercise of powers vested under the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975. At this juncture, present writ petition has been filed.

Counter affidavit has been filed, and therein, it has been contended that petitioner did not fulfill minimum eligibility criteria and had been appointed illegally, and further that his services were not confirmed in view of certain enquiries; as such directive has been issued for dispensing with the services of petitioner.

Rejoinder affidavit has been filed, and therein it has been contended that selection and appointment of petitioner had been validly made and further the communication dated 27.10.2001 does not refer to any enquiry having been conducted. Petitioner has contended that during pendency of writ petition, order has been passed on 13.07.2006 relieving him for resuming duties in the State of Uttar Pradesh, on account of his name being not included amongst the personnel allocated for the State of Uttarnachal. Letter dated 10.04.2003 mentions consideration of explanation of the employees on their own merits at the level of the Director.

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

Learned counsel for petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case petitioner's appointment had been validly made, and thereafter, on totally wrong premises his services have been sought to be dispensed with, as such impugned order of termination is liable to be quashed.

Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contended that rightful decision has been taken, and no interference is warranted with the impugned order.

After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position, which is emerging, is to the effect that in the advertisement dated 06.02.1992 nowhere, it was provided that appointment sought to be made was temporary on the post in question. Petitioner applied for consideration of his claim for the post of Photo Centre Operator. Eligibility criteria with experience had been provided for the post of Photo Centre Operator and Auditor-cum-Key Board Operator. At serial No. 5 of the Educational Qualification and Experience, it was categorically mentioned that the incumbents who possessed special experience of operating photo centre machine, qua them consideration could be made for according relaxation on eligibility front. Since petitioner possessed such special experience, as has been categorically mentioned in paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the writ petition and a copy of experience certificate issued by Newspaper Limited Allahabad was submitted, and thereafter selection was conducted, which comprised of practical examination and interview. Petitioner participated in both the aforesaid stages of selection. In the counter affidavit this statement of fact has not been disputed, and it has been sought to be contended that petitioner did not fulfill requisite eligibility criteria. Once eligibility criteria was provided for, and therein categorical provision was there for according relaxation in the aforementioned eligibility criteria, and petitioner had been offered appointment, as he possessed qualification, which could have been considered for according relaxation, the same cannot be made foundation and basis for non-suiting the claim of petitioner, as has been sought to be done in the present case. This is not at all the case of respondents in the counter affidavit that petitioner's claim is not at all covered under the exemption clause and further that at no point of time any exemption was accorded to him. Once authority to accord exemption qua educational qualification was there, and the authorities in their wisdom had chosen to accord such relaxation to petitioner, then by no stretch of imagination, petitioner's claim could have been non-suited on the ground that petitioner did not fulfill requisite eligibility criteria. Objection taken qua appointment of petitioner on this score is unsustainable and cannot be subscribed.

One more important feature, in the present case, is that in the advertisement, pursuant to which petitioner had applied, at no point of time it was mentioned that the nature of appointment, which was to be offered, was temporary one. Once process of selection, which had been undertaken, was meant for substantive appointment, then it does not lie in the mouth of respondents to say that petitioner's appointment was temporary, and exercise of powers vested under the U.P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 cannot be said to be justified by any means, specially when the petitioner has completed long length of service and has been sanctioned increments and permitted to cross Efficiency Bar, which is extended to a confirmed employee and not to a temporary employee.

Under the circumstances discussed above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 25.03.2006 passed by Director, Printing and Stationary, Allahabad is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to extend all consequential benefits to the petitioner forthwith.            

14.02.2007

SRY


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.