Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MOHAMMAD GUFRANULLAH versus DISTRICT JUDGE, MAHARAJGANJ AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mohammad Gufranullah v. District Judge, Maharajganj And Another - WRIT - A No. 17087 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 6343 (6 April 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

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.

It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Pool-car driver in the year 1996 in the District Judgeship, Gorakhpur Thereafter in the year 2006 the petitioner was transferred to District Mahrajganj on the same post of Pool-car driver. The contention of the petitioner is that since he had been assigned to perform the functions of class III post from time to time, he would be entitled to work on a class III post. On such representation of the petitioner, the District Judge had called for a report from the Additional District Judge, Mahrajganj. Such report has been submitted on 26.2.2007. The petitioner has thus filed this writ petition with the prayer for quashing the report/order dated 26.2.2007 and also for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner as a class III employee and that he may be permitted to work as a clerk.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri K.R.Sihori, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record.

In its report dated 26.2.2007 submitted by Additional District Judge, Mahrajganj, it has categorically been stated that the appointment of the petitioner was made on the post of Pool-car driver. It has also been rightly stated that for appointment on a class III post, there is separate procedure which is different from that of the Pool-Car driver and that as and when there will be vacancy on class III post, if permissible, the petitioner may appear in the departmental examinations and if found fit, he would be granted such promotion. The said recommendations made by the Additional District Judge are perfectly justified in law. The petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, claim that he be appointed on a class III post merely on the basis that on some occasions he has been asked to perform the duties on a class III post. Appointment on class III post has to be made as per the procedure prescribed. Thus the prayer made in this writ petition that the petitioner be treated on a class III post, does not deserve to be granted. I also do not find any infirmity with the report/order dated 26.2.2007. Accordingly, in my view, no interference is called for with the impugned order.

This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to cost.

dt. 6.4.2007

dps

w.p. 17087.07


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.