Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SURENDRA PAL SINGH versus COLLECTOR, SHAHJAHANPUR AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Surendra Pal Singh v. Collector, Shahjahanpur And Others - WRIT - A No. 22036 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 8969 (10 May 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.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition   No. 22036 of  2007

Surendra Pal Singh ........................................    Petitioner

Versus

Collector/ District Magistrate,

Shahjahanpur & others   .........................          Respondents

....................................

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner.

By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 23.3.2007 passed by the Collector, Shahjahanpur by which the petitioner's representation has been rejected.  Petitioner's case in the writ petition is that he was sent for training of Revenue Inspector in the year 2005 and prior to that he was working as Revenue Inspector hence after return from training he was allowed to work as Revenue Inspector.  The petitioner has filed writ petition being Writ Petition No. 9603 of 2006 which was disposed of  by this Court directing the petitioner to file representation before the District Magistrate.  The District Magistrate by the impugned order has held that the petitioner was never appointed as Revenue Inspector in any capacity nor at any point of time he was paid salary of the Revenue Inspector.  There is no question of promoting or posting  the petitioner as Revenue Inspector.  The petitioner relies on the  letter dated  25.1.1999  of the Tahsildar Sadar (Annexure-6 to the writ petition ) which is recommendation of the Tahsildar praying that the petitioner who was working as Lekhpal till further orders be permitted to discharge the duties of Revenue Inspector in addition to his own duty.  The said report was accepted on 2.2.1999.   The claim of the petitioner is thus based on the letter dated 25.1.1999 and the order dated  2.2.1999.  The order Annexure-6 to the writ petition clearly mentions that the said order was only for giving additional charge to the petitioner in addition to his own duty as Lekhpal. The said order cannot be said to be posting of the petitioner as Revenue Inspector.  The substantive post of the petitioner is Lekhpal.  The Sub Divisional Magistrate  has no authority or jurisdiction to appoint  any person in any capacity as Revenue Inspector.  The District Magistrate in the order has clearly mentioned that the appointment on the post is to be made in accordance with Uttar Pradesh Rajaswa Karyapalak Sewa Niyamawali, 1977 when the list is sent by the Board of Revenue. It has been stated that the petitioner has not been recommended by the Board of Revenue, he cannot be appointed as Revenue Inspector.  Learned counsel for the petitioner  has further contended that one  Anupam Tiwari who is fifteen years junior is working as Revenue Inspector  and Mahesh Chandra Saxena  is 17 years junior.  The District Magistrate in the order has dealt with both the aforesaid persons and has observed that they are working on the post of Lekhpal.   The petitioner can claim posting as Revenue Inspector  if he has right to such posting, even assuming without admitting that certain junior persons  are working  as Revenue Inspector  that does not  give any right to the petitioner for posting on the post of Revenue Inspector.  There is no error in the impugned order   which warrant interference by this Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution.  However, it is observed that the petitioner's promotion as Revenue Inspector  may be considered by the appropriate authority in accordance with law in case the petitioner is so eligible.

With the above observations the writ petition is dismissed.

               

D/-10.5.2007

SCS


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.