Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DR. RAVINDRA NATH SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dr. Ravindra Nath Singh v. State Of U.P. & Another - WRIT - A No. 23083 of 1998 [2007] RD-AH 6688 (12 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

Court No. 29

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 23083 of 1998

Dr. Ravindra Nath Singh

Vs.

State of U.P. & another

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

Heard Sri P.S. Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 10.3.1998 passed by respondent no. 1 rejecting his representation claiming seniority on the post of Senior Lecturer in Government College over the respondent nos. 3 to 17 has come up in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is contended that the petitioner was appointed at Government Degree College, Duddhi, District Mirzapur pursuant to the appointment letter dated 19.11.1973. The aforesaid appointment was ad hoc since regular appointment could have been made though U.P. Public Service Commission but pending regular selection the said appointment was made. Subsequently, the petitioner became entitled to be considered for regularization in view of the provisions of U.P. Regularization of Ad hoc appointment (on post within the purview of Public Service Commission) Rules 1979 (hereinafter referred to as ''1979 Rules') but he was not considered for regularization on the ground that he did not possess minimum qualification for appointment to the post of Head of the Department at the time of his initial appointment. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed writ petition no. 14201 of 1984 which was allowed vide judgment dated 22.1.1996 directing the respondents to regularize him as Head of the Department with effect from 19.11.1976 and to determine seniority accordingly in accordance with law. A Special Leave Petition against the said judgment was dismissed by the Apex Court on 17.2.1997. The petitioner thereafter stood regularized with effect from 19.11.1976, but in the matter of seniority, the respondent no. 1 passed the order dated 10.3.1998 impugned in this writ petition holding that for the purpose of seniority his regular appointment is taken to be from 19.11.1976 and therefore he would be junior to all the persons who have been regularly appointed prior to 4.9.1973. It is further observed that w.e.f 4.9.1973 the directly recruited Senior Lecturers were placed at par with the Head of the Department vide government order dated 4.9.1973 and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be senior to the respondent nos. 3 to 17 who were appointed on regular basis on a date earlier to the date of regular appointment of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the post of Senior Lecturer was in the pay scale of Rs. 400-900 though the petitioner in the year 1973 was appointed in the scale of Rs. 650-1300 and therefore could not have been treated to be junior to the Senior Lecturers who were appointed in lower pay scale. He further submits that the Government Order dated 4.9.1973 insofar as it declared Senior Lecturer at par with the Head of the Department is illegal and invalid as it treats unequal as equal. However, we are not in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Firstly the validity of the government order dated 4.9.1973 has not been challenged in the present writ petition. Moreover, the petitioner has already attained age of superannuation in the year 2002 and therefore dispute pertaining to his seniority in our view raised in this writ petition has rendered infructuous and no effective relief can be granted to him. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.

Dt/-12.04.2007

Avy


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.