Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BAL BHADRA PRASAD TIWARI versus SECY. BASIC SHIKSHA PARISHAD UP ALLD. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bal Bhadra Prasad Tiwari v. Secy. Basic Shiksha Parishad Up Alld. & Others - WRIT - A No. 39611 of 2001 [2007] RD-AH 7352 (23 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.31

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39611 of 2001

Bal Bhadra Prasad Tiwari   Vs.  Secretarry Basic Shiksha

 Parishad, U.P., Allahabad & others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri P.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents no.1, 2 and 3. Although no notice was ever issued to the respondents, the counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 to which rejoinder affidavit has also been filed and as such, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.

It is the case of the petitioner that he was engaged on 24.11.1995 as a Peon on a fixed salary of Rs.30/- per month. He claims that since then he has been continuously working as peon and is now being paid Rs.500/- per month as fixed salary. He has not disclosed as to on what basis and under which Rule, he was appointed as Peon. He has also not mentioned as to whether there was any vacancy against which he was appointed and whether any selection process was followed before giving him such appointment i.e. the post was advertised and the petitioner had appeared before the Selection Committee. Admittedly, the said engagement/appointment was made through back door.

By an order dated 26.9.2001 the respondent no.3 has stated that the application for regularization of the petitioner has been rejected as there was no such Rules for regularizing the services of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to place any such Rule under which the petitioner can be granted the benefit of regularization of his appointment/engagement as peon.  In the absence of the petitioner having been able to show any legal right to be regularized in service on a Class IV post, no such mandamus can be issued. Thus, I do not find any good ground for interference with the impugned order dated  26.9.2001 passed by the respondent no.3.

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

However, it may be observed that as and when any vacancy of Class IV is advertised, the case of the petitioner may be considered for such appointment, in accordance with law.    

Dt/-23.4.2007

Ru

               


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.