Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

J.P. MISRA versus STATE

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


J.P. Misra v. State - WRIT - A No. 219 of 1983 [2003] RD-AH 330 (19 September 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.37

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 219 of  1983

Jagdish Prakash Misra v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others

Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.

By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for the following reliefs:-

(a) Issue a writ, rule, order or direction in the atu5e of certiorari quashing the order dated 15.9.1982 received by the petitioner on 24.9.1982 of the opposite party no.1.

(b) Issue a writ, rule, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to appoint the petitioner as Registration Clerk in pursuance of the order dated 15.89.1972 of the District Registrar, Mainpuri.

(c) Issue any other suitable writ, rule, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(d) Award costs of the petition to the petitioner."

Vide order dated 15th September, 1982 the representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected.  It appears that on 15th August, 1972 the District Registrar, Mainpuri approved the name of the petitioner for enlistment as Registration Clerk exercising power under Rule 97 of the Registration Manual.  The enlistment as Registration Clerk only entitled the petitioner for temporary appointment as and when a short term vacancy occurred on the post of Registration Clerk in the office of the District Registrar, Mainpuri.  Further, it is admitted that the petitioner was not given any chance to work over a short term vacancy.  The petitioner made an application before the District Registrar, Mainpur on 3rd February, 1975 for seeking correction of the mistake committed by the office of the District Registrar, Mainpuri whereas the name was not mentioned in the list prepared in this behalf giving appointment on the short term vacancy.  He made another representation before the District Registrar, Mainpuri on 10th January, 1977.  Thereafter he made an application before the Finance Minister, Government of U.P. Lucknow.  The representation was rejected vide order dated 15th September, 1982.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Satya Prakash, and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

The enlistment by the District Registrar, Mainpuri was only to give an opportunity to the petitioner for being engaged in a short term vacancy and nothing more.  The submission is that at the time when the petitioner was enlisted for the post he was below 30 years of age and, therefore, he cannot be denied his entitlement merely on account of some mistake committed by the office of the District Registrar, Mainpuri. He further submitted that the State Government had arbitrarily rejected  the application in a routine manner.  It may be mentioned here that the enlistment of the petitioner as alleged is only for the purpose of giving an opportunity to be engaged over a short term vacancy which may occur in the office of the District Registrar, Mainpuri.  It did not create any right upon the petitioner to be engaged or giving a permanent job.  More than 20 years have passed since the filing of the writ petition.  If the petitioner was about 30 years of age in mid seventies he must be now about 53 years of age as admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.  In view of the provisions contained in UTTAR PRADESH SEVAON MEN BHARTI( AAYU SEEMA) NIYAMAVALI, 1972 at that time the upper age limit for the appointment in Government service was 30 years.  Thus, no relief can be granted to the petitioner on account of subsequent developments.  

The writ petition has been rendered  infructuous and is dismissed as such.

19.9.2003

mt


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.