Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAVINDRA KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ravindra Kumar v. State Of U.P. And Ors. - WRIT - A No. 5669 of 1991 [2007] RD-AH 6558 (10 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 Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard counsels for the parties and perused the record.

The petitioner claims that he was selected by the Selection Committee for appointment to the post of Sanitary Inspector in the Notified Area Committeei, Muni-ki-Reti, district Tehri Garhwal ( now falls in the State of Uttara Khand). Accordingly, he was appointed on daily wage basis vide order of appointment dated 1.6.1987. He joined at Tehri Garhwal as Sanitary Inspector on daily wage basis  w.e.f. 3.6.1987. He worked as such till 31.10.1988.  Thereafter he was appointed on ad hoc basis as Sanitary Inspector at Dadri, district Ghaziabad vide order dated 1.11.1988.  The petitioner claims that he has been working as such till date on ad hoc basis.

It appears from perusal of record that the State Government, vide order dated 8th February, 1991, appended as Annexure 15 to the writ petition, informed the District Magistrate Ghaziabad that since the appointment of the petitioner was irregular, his services are terminated with immediate effect. Consequnt to the aforesaid Government order, the District Magistrate passed the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner with immediate effect vide impugned order dated 13.2.1991.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction by means of the instant writ petition.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the appointment of the petitioner, on ad hoc basis, was approved by Director of Local Bodies, who is appointing authority of Sanitary Inspector, as such, petitioner ought to have continued on the post of Sanitary Inspector and the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.

From the perusal of record, it is evident that there is no sanctioned post of Sanitary Inspector at Dadri, district Ghaziabad. Rule 31 of the U.P. Palika (Centralized) Services Rules 1966 clealy provides that State Government after obtaining prior approval from the U.P. Public Service Commission is the appointing authority of Sanitary Inspectors.  Admittedly, the petitioner was not appointed by State Government after obtaining prior permission from the U.P. Public Service Commission. That being the factual  position, the writ petition is not maintainable in view of Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules. No ad hoc appointment could be made as such, the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner was ab initio void.

In view of above legal position, the writ petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

Dated 10.4.2007

kkb


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.