Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SRI SHEO LAL versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sri Sheo Lal v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 2486 of 1990 [2007] RD-AH 7035 (17 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 case of the petitioner is that selection proceedings were held in June 1989 for filling up a post of Registration Clerk in district Mainpuri in accordance with U.P. Registration Department (District Establishment) Ministerial Services Rules, 1978 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').  In the selection held on 9.6.1989, the petitioner was selected. Having been medically examined, he was issued appointment letter dated 14.6.1989, appended as Annexure 3 to the writ petition as under :-

" vns'k

Jh fetkZ vgen teky ;qlqQ] mi fucU/kd eSuiqjh ds LfkkukUrj.k ds QyLo#i gqbZ fjfDr esa eq[; fucU/ku fyfid Jh lqjs'k pUnz feJk dks mi fucU/kd ,oa ofj"Bre fucU/ku fyfid Jh jktsUnz oekZ dks eq[; fucU/ku fyfid ds in ij fu;qDr fd;s tkus ds QyLo#i fucU/ku fyfid ds fjDr gq, in in fu;qfDr gsrq fnukad 9&6&89 dks vH;fFkZ;ksa dk lk{kkRdkj fy;k x;k A lk{kkRdkj gqrq xfBr lfefr usa Jh f'koyky iq= Jh Jhjke fuoklh xzke mlekuiqj iks0 c;ksrh [kqnZ eSuiqjh dks mDr fjDr in ij fu;qDr fd;s tkus dh laLrqfr dh gS A

vr,ao p;u lfefr dh laLrqfr dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, mDr fjfDr esa Jh f'koyky iq= Jh Jhjke fuoklh xzke mlekuiqj iks0 c;ksrk [qknZ eSuiqjh dh fu;qfDr vLFkkbZ rkSj ij osrudze 354&10%424 n0jks0&10&454&12&550 esa mi fucU/kd dk;kZy; Hkksxkao esa dh tkrh gS A ;g fu;qfDr iq.kZr% vLFkkbZ gksxh vkSj fdlh Hkh le; fcuk iwoZ uksfVl ds lekIr dh tk ldsxh A

                                                  g0 jke d`".k

                                        ftyk fucU/kd  eSuiqjh"

A perusal of appoitment letter dated 14.6.1989 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) shows that his appoitment was temporary and he was appointed on the vacancy caused by consequential promotion of staff members on higher post due to transfer of one Sri Mirza Ahmad Jamal Yusuf, Deputy Registrar, Mainpuri and that was liable to be terminated at any time without prior notice.  

Rule 5 of the Rules provides for source of recruitment of the various categories of posts in the service.  Post of Registration Clerk is filled up by direct recrutment. It further provides that 10% of the posts of Registration Clerk shall be filled up by promotion from amongst the Group 'D' employees in accordance with the provisons of the Subordinate Offices.Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1975 as amended from time to time. Clause 2 (2) of Rule 5 of the Rules provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the rules, before direct recruitment is made to the post of Registration Clerk, the appointment shall be made from amongst the candidates whose names are included in the list of approved candidates prepared under Rule 97 of the Registratin Manual for Uttar Pradesh Part II ( Seventh Edition) as it stood on June, 1974 and in accordance with procedure laid down therein.

It is apparent from perusal of record that when petitioner was appointed, no advertisement was issued.  Thus, the petitioner cannot be treated to have been appointed against 'direct recruitment'.  His case also does not fall within the category of the vacancies to be filled up by promotion of Group 'D' employees. Per contra, it is apparent that he was only interviewed. Hence he was not appointed by following the due procedures as contained in the aforesaid recruitment rules. In any case, his appointment was purely on temporary basis which could be terminated at any time without any notice.

There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders warranting interference in the writ jurisdiction.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any stands vacated. No orders as to costs.

Dated 17.4.2007

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.