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


Km. Razia Begum And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 68958 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 4990 (21 March 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'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

Heard counsels for the parties and perused the record.

The case of the petitioners is that in compliance of direction in the judgment and order dated 28.3.2006 of High Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 20937 of 2003 , the petitioners filed detailed representation with the prayer to consider their grievance in the light of circular issued by Government of India through the Ministry of Human Resource Development.  However, the representation of the petitioners has been rejected vide orders dated 1.8.2006 and 30.8.2006 appended as Annexures 4-a and 4-b to the writ petition.

Counsel for the petitioners contended that representation of the petitioners has been decided in a cursorily and cryptic manner without considering the report of respondent no. 5.

Admittedly, the appointment/engagement of the petitioners is under a particular scheme and the said scheme has admittedly come to an end.  Appointment of the petitioners was on contract basis.Therefore, no writ in the nature of mandamus can be issued to the respondents for regularization of the services of the petitioners.

This Court cannot direct for regularization of services of the petitioners in view of the decision of Hon'ble the Apex court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Sardara Singh- (1998)9 SCC-709.  Engagement of petitioners was on contract basis and the High Court cannot issue any mandamus for personal service and change the nature of appointment from contractual into permanent/regular one.  It is for the employer himself to consider appointment of personnel in accordance with recruitment rules.     It is not feasible in the writ jurisdiction to take evidence and decide the matter merely on the basis of exchange of affidavits. It is for the concerned authority to consider claim of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law if they are found eligible.

A perusal of impugned orders reveals that in case petitioners move application, their candidature can be considered on availability of vacant postas is clear from the following observations in the order dated 30.8.2006 rejecting their representation :-

"pwWfd loZ f'k{kk vfHk;ku ds vUrxZr izR;sd tuin esa ,d ftyk leUo;d] fuekZ.k dk;Z voj vfHk;Urk dk in l`ftr gS ;kfpx.k mi;qDr le; ij bu inksa ds fo#) vkosnu nsa rks mi;qDrrk ds vk/kkj ij fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA"

The representation of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that the term of the scheme under which they were employed on contract basis has expired and there is no existing vacancy, hence their services cannot be regularized.   There is no illegality or infirmity in the orders impugned warranting interference in the writ jurisdiction.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petiton is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Dated 21st March, 2007



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.