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


Sushil Kumar Mishra v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 2189 of 2003 [2007] RD-AH 3451 (28 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).


Hon.V.M.Sahai, J.

Hon.Shishir Kumar, J.

We have heard Sri R.M.Saggi, learned counsel for the petitioner and  learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner was appointed as Typist in District Rural Development Agency, Kanpur Dehat by the District Magistrate, Kanpur, who is the Chairman of the aforesaid agency.  He was confirmed.  One Liyakat Ali Stenographer in the aforesaid agency was transferred from Kanpur Dehat to Lucknow.  He was asked to handover charge of stenographer to the petitioner.  The petitioner took charge in addition to his substantive post of typist.  He continued as a stenograhper, as there was a ban of making fresh appointments. The petitioner claim for the salary and other benefits for the post of stenograhper.  He filed a Claim Petition No.149 of 1996 before the State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow.  The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on 20.11.2002 on the ground that the post of stenographer is a post of direct recruitment.  It is not a promotional post, therefore, the petitioner cannot be promoted as stenographer.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on by-laws filed as Annexure 5 to the rejoinder affidavit that it is open to the Board to fill any post even if direct recruitment by promotion.  

We do not find that any such power has been vested in the Board. Further the post of direct recruitment could not be filled by promotion. Cadre of typists and stenographers are different and the Tribunal has committed no illegality in rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has lastly urged that he has been transferred during pendency of the Claim Petition before the Tribunal from Kanpur Dehat to Ghatampur on 12.2.1996 but the petitioner did not join at Ghatampur as stated in the counter affidavit.  Counsel for the petitioner has urged that no transfer order has been served on him though in Anneuxre 8 of the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has annexed a letter dated 26.2.1997 and has stated that he went to join at Ghatampur but his joining was not accepted. It is clear that the petitioner had knowledge of transfer order and went to Ghatampur for joining. If the respondents did not permit the petitioner to join his duties then the petitioner should have approached this Court or some appropriate legal forum but the petitioner  did not do anything and remain absent and file this writ petition in the year 2003.  In this petition also there is no relief   claimed that the petitioner should be permitted to join at Ghatampur.

From the facts of the case it appears that the petitioner has abandoned his services.  For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ petition.  The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.            

  No order as to costs.        





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.