Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VINAY KUMAR SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vinay Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 1090 of 2002 [2004] RD-AH 501 (10 August 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Reserved

Special Appeal No. 1090 of 2002

Vinai Kumar Singh Vs. The State of U.P. and others

~~~~

Hon'ble Tarun Chatterjee, CJ

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.)

This Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 1.8.2002 of a learned Judge dismissing writ petition No. 8592 of 2002.

The petitioner, who is the appellant before us, responded to the advertisement issued for recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector in U.P. Civil Police by submitting an application in which he claimed the benefit of reservation meant for ''Outstanding Sportsman'. After the preliminary examination the petitioner was sent for training and after completion of the training an appointment and placement letter dated 7.2.1998 was issued to the petitioner requiring him to join at Fatehpur as a temporary Sub Inspector. Thereafter some complaints were received regarding selection under the ''Outstanding Sportsman' quota and the State Government referred the matter for investigation to the Crime Branch of C.I.D. The Superintendent, C.B.C.I.D. submitted his report that the persons selected under the ''Outstanding Sportsman' quota did not posses the requisite games certificates as contemplated under the Government Order dated 8.5.1987 and accordingly not only criminal prosecution was launched against such persons but orders were also issued terminating their services under the provisions of the U.P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Rules'). These orders were challenged by the petitioner and other persons by filing a writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition No. 20078 of 1999 which was allowed on 4.1.2001. It was held that the services of the petitioners do not come within the purview of ''Temporary Service' as defined in the aforesaid Rules, and on this ground alone the impugned orders of termination were set aside. It was, however, also contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners had been illegally appointed under the quota reserved for ''Outstanding Sportsman' but the Court refrained from going into this question and directed that the respondents were at liberty to take such decision as they may deem fit and proper after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners on the question as to whether they fall under the category of ''Outstanding Sportsman'.

A show cause notice dated 7.1.2001 was then issued to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why his services may not be terminated since the petitioner had claimed the benefit of reservation as an ''Outstanding Sportsman' even though he was not entitled to it in accordance with the Government Order and while seeking employment, he had submitted an affidavit clearly stating that in case any averment was found to be incorrect in the application form his services could be terminated. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply mentioning that he was an ''Outstanding Sportsman' under the Government Order dated 11.2.1975 and, therefore, it cannot be said that he had made any false averment in the application form. An order dated 4.8.2001 was then passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kanpur Range, Kanpur after considering the materials on record including the show cause notice and the reply submitted by the petitioner. By the said order the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that he was not an ''Outstanding Sportsman'. Such an order was issued on the basis of the affidavit submitted by the petitioner that in case any false averment was found to have been made in the application submitted by him while seeking employment, his services could be terminated. It is this order dated 4.8.2001 which was impugned in the writ petition.

The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that for seeking employment to the post of Sub Inspector in Civil Police, a candidate could claim reservation under the Sports quota only if he was an ''Outstanding Sports man' as defined under the Government Order dated 8.5.1987 but since in the instant case, the petitioner did not fulfil the requirements he could not claim appointment under the said category and, therefore, the respondents were justified in terminating the services of the petitioner.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner appellant and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have carefully perused the materials available on record.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the petitioner appellant was an ''Outstanding Sportsman' as defined under the Government Order dated 11.2.1975 which alone was applicable and, therefore, it cannot be said that any incorrect information had been supplied by the petitioner, and so the termination order was liable to be set aside.

Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the Government Order dated 8.5.1987 alone defines as to who an ''Outstanding Sportsman' was and since admittedly the petitioner did not possess the requisite Certificates as contemplated under the said Government Order, the services of the petitioner had been rightly terminated.

The dispute, therefore, centres round the question as to who would be an ''Outstanding Sportsman' entitled to claim the benefit of reservation. A bare perusal of the Government Order dated 11.2.1975 indicates that it deals with reservation in Class III services for an ''Outstanding Sportsman' and for availing the benefit a candidate should have participated in Inter University Tournaments from his University for three years. A perusal of the Government Order dated 8.5.1987, however, reveals that it was issued for providing appointments to specifically Sub Inspectors/Constables of Civil Police and that a certain percentage of posts were reserved for ''Outstanding Sportsman' and that for Sub Inspectors and Constables separate requirements were mentioned. In the case of Sub Inspector of Police a candidate must have obtained Ist or IInd place in any International Level Tournament or he must be a member of a team, which obtained Ist or IInd place in an International Level Tournament. For Constables an entirely different requirement was not only specified but a reference to the Government Order dated 11.2.1975 was also made. From the aforesaid it is clear that whereas the Government Order dated 11.2.1975 is only in respect of Class III services, the Government Order dated 8.5.1987 deals with both the Sub Inspectors of Police and Constables and for both these posts different certificates are required. It is also clear that for the Sub Inspectors of Police the Government Order dated 8.5.1987 was issued providing reservations for ''Outstanding Sportsman' for the first time and the requirements were also specified therein. The petitioner had submitted the application on the basis of the advertisement issued in the year 1991 and, therefore, he could avail of the benefit of reservation for ''Outstanding Sportsman' provided he fulfilled the conditions specified in the Government Order dated 8.5.1987.

The matter can be examined from another angle. The Government Order dated 8.5.1987 being subsequent in point of time would be applicable even if it were to be held that the earlier Government Order dated 11.2.1975 was to apply to even Sub Inspectors of Police.

We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that it is the Government Order dated 8.5.1987 alone which would be applicable to the Sub Inspectors of Police seeking the benefit of reservation under the category of ''Outstanding Sportsman'.

We also do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that on the basis of the Rules relating to Police Training for the year 1991, it must be held that the Government Order dated 11.2.1975 shall apply because a reference to the said Government Order has been made in the clause providing age relaxation to ''Outstanding Sportsman'. In our considered view this clause merely provides relaxation of five years' age for an ''Outstanding Sportsman' and it does not provide at all that requirements would be referable to the Government Order dated 11.2.1975.

Learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that once the writ petitioner appellant had been appointed on 7.2.1998, the authorities could not have subsequently cancelled his appointment on the sole ground that he was not an ''Outstanding Sportsman'. This submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is also liable to be rejected. The writ petitioner appellant claimed reservation under the category of an ''Outstanding Sportsman' and along with the application form he had also submitted an affidavit clearly mentioning that in the event any false averment was found to have been made by him in the application form, his services could be terminated. The writ petitioner appellant is not an ''Outstanding Sportsman' in terms of the Government Order dated 8.5.1987 and, therefore, the petitioner had made a false averment in the application form. It cannot, therefore, be said that the respondents committed any illegality in terminating the services of the writ petitioner appellant on this ground.

Learned counsel for the appellant then relied upon certain decisions in support of this contention that once the writ petitioner had been appointed, his services could not have been terminated on the ground that he was not an ''Outstanding Sports Man' but we find that none of these decisions are of any help to him. The decision in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Suman Lata reported in 1999 (9) Supreme 320 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner because a clear finding had been recorded by the Court that the petitioner possessed the requisite qualifications which would make her eligible for appointment. Likewise in the case of Dinesh Kumar Garg Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission and others reported in (1994) 2 UPLBEC 1112 the Court also recorded a finding that the petitioner possessed the requisite qualifications since he had studied ''Urdu' up to class VIII and, therefore, had working knowledge of ''Urdu'. The decision in the case of Basudeo Tiwary Vs. Sido Kanhu University and others reported in JT 1998 (6) SC 464 is also of no benefit to the petitioner since the impugned order of termination had been set aside only on the ground that notice had not been given but in the instant case notice had been issued to the petitioner who had also submitted a detailed reply and thereafter the termination order was passed. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the decisions given by this Court in the case of Subhash Chandra Sharma Vs. Managing Director and another reported in 2000 (1) ESC 65 and in the case Mata Prasad Misra Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2000 (2) ESC 843 is also misplaced inasmuch as in these cases the orders of termination had been set aside on the ground that the procedure prescribed under the Rules had not been followed. Nothing has been placed before us to indicate as what particular procedure under the Rules had not been followed but even otherwise we are of the opinion that since the only dispute required to be decided by the authority was regarding the applicability of the Government Order dated 8.5.1987 or the Government Order dated 11.2.1975, the principles of natural justice were satisfied by the issuance of the show cause notice and consideration of the reply before passing the order terminating the services of the petitioner.    

Learned counsel for the appellant lastly urged that he had been subjected to discrimination by the authorities inasmuch as certain persons had been appointed as Sub Inspectors of Police even though they were not ''Outstanding Sportsman' in terms of the Government Order dated 8.5.1987, but from the records, we find that the petitioner has not been able to lay any foundation for such a contention and the only two cases which have been referred to by the petitioner are those where the appointment orders had not been issued by the authorities but such persons are continuing in employment on the basis of the interim orders passed by the Court. It cannot, therefore, be said that the authorities had adopted any discriminatory attitude towards the petitioner. For all the reasons stated above, there is no merit in this Special Appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Dt/-

Sharma


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.