Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Union Of India And Others v. Manoj Kumar Sharma Another - WRIT - A No. 33501 of 2003 [2003] RD-AH 258 (4 August 2003)

 

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.34

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33501 of 2003

Union of India & Ors. ......... Petitioners

Versus

Manoj Kumar Sharma Anr. ......... Respondents

Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon. D.P. Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed against the impugned judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated  7th July, 2003, by which the claim of the respondent no.1 has been allowed on the ground that he was ad hoc employee and ought to have been replaced only by a regularly selected candidate and an ad hoc can not be replaced by another ad hoc.

So far as the legal proposition is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Piara Singh & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 2130, has categorically held that an ad hoc or a temporary employee does not have a right to hold the post and he must move out for the regularly selected candidate but ad hoc can not be replaced by another ad hoc.

What is disputed herein is that Shri Shyam Gopal has replaced the respondent no.1, who was a regularly selected candidate. However, there is nothing on the record to show that Shri Shyam Gopal was a regular employee. The learned Tribunal has proceeded with the matter assuming that he was an ad hoc appointee. Nothing is clear from the pleadings which have been made in the writ petition, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

However, if petitioners are aggrieved, they may file a review application or may proceed against the said respondent in accordance with the law.

04.08.2003

AHA


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.