Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Vijay Krishna Chaturvedi &Another v. State Of U.P. &Others - WRIT - A No. 41981 of 1992 [2004] RD-AH 238 (10 May 2004)


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).


Court No.23

(1) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.41981 of 1992

Vijay Krishna Chaturvedi & another Vs. State of U.P.

and others ... ...   (First Set)

Connected With

(2) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.41982 of 1992

Sripati Narayan Singh & others Vs. State of U.P.

and others           ... ...          (Second Set)


Hon'ble V.C. Misra, J.

Heard Sri M.B. Saxena learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Mohan Yadav learned standing counsel for the respondents in both sets. On the joint request of the counsels for the parties, since the facts and grounds are common and the impugned orders are also the same in both the writ petitions, they are being disposed off finally by this common order and Judgment at this stage in terms of the High Court Rules.

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the termination orders dated 30.10.1992 passed by the respondent no.3, the District Magistrate, Maharajganj on the ground inter-alia that their services have been terminated wrongly and illegally without affording them any opportunity of hearing or show cause notice, and even the enquiry report on the basis of which the termination orders have been issued, was not supplied to them and the orders were passed behind their back. All the petitioners of both sets were registered with the employment exchange of district Gorakhpur and the petitioners along with many other similarly situated candidates were selected under the provisions of Subordinate Offices Lipik Varg (Direct Recruitment), IV Amendment Rules, 1979 and Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff  (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985, since, the old Rules 1979 were amended and substituted by 1985 Rules, through a duly appointed departmental selection committee and they were given employment in the office of District Magistrate, Gorakhpur as Seasonal Assistant Wasil Baqi Navis (Lipik) (hereinafter referred to in short ''A.W.B.N.').

The petitioner no.1 of second set being aggrieved by the method of pick and choose at Gorakhpur, had earlier filed a Writ Petition No.10908 of 1986 Sripat Narain Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others. The said writ petition was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court wherein a direction was issued to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment to the vacancies existing prior to 30.6.1986 and to make appointments against those vacancies in accordance with the select list in order of merit.

On 2.10.1989, the district Gorakhpur was bifurcated and a new district was carved out from it and Maharajganj district was created, resulting in, that those persons who were working in the Tehsils of newly created district Maharajganj, were treated as employees of the district Maharajganj and the remaining with Gorakhpur district. In the writ petitions, it has been stated that earlier the petitioners were given their salary in the grade applicable to A.W.B.N. with annual increments but subsequently they were ordered to be paid again at a consolidated pay of Rs.1200/- per month. On agitation, the order regarding consolidated pay was withdrawn and the petitioners were again started being paid the salary according to the grade applicable to A.W.B.N. In the writ petitions, it has been stated that those petitioners who on bifurcation were retained at Gorakhpour their services were regularized by 7.3.1991. On the collective representation of the petitioners for regularizing of their services also, the District Magistrate, Maharajganj vide its order dated 1.5.1990 directed that those persons who were working at Maharajganj should appear in a formal examination on 12.5.1990. The list of such persons included all the petitioners to the writ petitions, who objected for fresh examination on the ground that since they had already been duly selected by a duly constituted selection committee under the Rules of 1979 and 1985 Rules as direct recruitment of lipik which provided for probation of one year and thereafter they would be considered for confirmation, and hence, they should not have been called upon to take their examination, instead their services should have been regularized. However, though, the written examination had taken place as per direction of the District Magistrate, but due to controversy raised, the matter was dropped and no selection for regularization of the petitioners could be made and they were allowed to continue on seasonal basis.

That in the mean time, 12 clear vacancies on the post of lipik occurred in the Collectorate and its subordinate offices under the District Magistrate, Maharajganj. The Prabhari Adhikari Sanyukta Karyalaya vide his note dated 13.5.1991 informed the District Magistrate that in view of the clear vacancies the persons who were working after due selection through their duly constituted selection committee, the services of such persons be regularized through fresh selection committee, the District Magistrate approved the suggestion and directed for constitution of a selection committee which consisted of Pargana Adhikari, Sadar who belonged to Schedule Caste and Upper Zila Adhikari (Chairman). The said selection committee assembled on 21.6.1991 and finalized the names of the petitioners and other for being appointed on regular basis against the vacant posts of lipik. The selection so made by the said selection committee was duly approved by the District Magistrate, vide its order dated 22.6.1991 and regular appointment of the petitioners and others were made by the order of District Magistrate dated 24.6.1991 and thereafter, the formal appointment letters were issued to the petitioners. A note on the file regarding selection of the petitioners and the letter of appointment of the petitioners have been filed to the writ petitions. The petitioners continued to work thereafter and were paid their salary accordingly.

All of a sudden vide impugned orders-dated 30.10.1992, the services of the petitioners of both sets were terminated on the basis of enquiry report initiated on a complaint dated 24.7.1991 of Up Block Pramukh, Maharajganj, on the ground that the appointment of the petitioners were made illegally against the Rules and inspite of ban order, anti dated as the selection committee constituted on 21.6.1991 was not validly constituted in accordance with the provisions of Rules 15, 17, 22 & 23 of U.P. District Offices (Collectorate) Ministerial Services Rules, 1980 and U.P. Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1975.

The petitioners being aggrieved by the said termination order, filed the present writ petitions which were admitted on 13.11.1992 and ad-interim order was passed staying the operation of the orders dated 30.10.1992 subsequently extended till further orders.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The respondents, while admitting the fact that the petitioners were duly selected and appointed along with other candidates who were later on regularized and confirmed at Gorakhpur, have stressed that since the petitioners fell within the territorial jurisdiction of newly carved out district Maharajganj, they had to hold a fresh selection and their services could not be automatically regularized. More so, since, the newly constituted selection committee was in accordance with the provisions of the said rules, their services were liable to be terminated having been appointed illegally. It has also been submitted by the learned standing counsel that there was no need of providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or even supplying them with the copy of enquiry report before the termination of their services.

I have looked into the matter in detail and from the facts on record, I find that the petitioners have been duly selected through a duly constituted selection committee initially in 1981 in accordance with the provisions of Subordinate Offices Lipik Varg (Direct recruitment) 4th Amendment Rules, 1979 and Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct recruitment) Rules, 1985 along with other incumbents who on the bifurcation of the district of Gorakhpur were retained at Gorakhpur and their services have been regularized, the petitioners too should have been considered for regularization of their services against the existing vacancies of lipiks as and when 12 substantive vacancies arose in the present case, as claimed by them. In fact, they were subsequently again considered by a selection committee constituted by the District Magistrate, Maharajganj, under the provisions of Rules 17 of the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct recruitment) Rules, 1985. Learned standing counsel has stressed, that the second selection committee was wrongly constituted since, it did not contained a member from the minority committee and, therefore, it was not a duly appointed committee.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of these writ petitions, some of the petitioners (only eight of them) have been duly promoted vide order-dated 2.11.2002, which is subject to the decision of the present writ petitions. On the above said facts and observations, I am of the view that the constitution of the second selection committee was not all required as the petitioners were not required to appear afresh for a selection in the services after bifurcation of the district Maharajganj, once they had been duly selected and appointed in accordance with law. The petitioners should have been treated at par with those retained at district Gorakhpur. More so, since, the termination orders have been based on the enquiry report, which stands vitiated as the enquiry officer was subordinate to the authority who had passed the earlier appointment orders in accordance with law. The petitioners' services have been wrongly and illegally terminated behind their back, without affording them any opportunity of hearing or without providing them a copy of the enquiry report or show cause notice, against the principles of natural justice.

The impugned orders dated 30.10.1992 are quashed. Let a writ of certiorari be issued. The petitioners shall stand regularized in service with effect form 26.6.1991. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

May 10, 2004



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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.