High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Dayal Misra v. Dy. Cane Commissioner/R.C.S.A. Gorakhpur & Others - WRIT - A No. 14381 of 2000  RD-AH 555 (16 August 2004)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14381 of 2000
Ram Dayal Misra Vs. Deputy Cane Commissioner/Regional Cane Service Authority, Gorakhpur and others
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.2.2000 passed by the Deputy Cane Commissioner/Chairman, Regional Cane Service, Authority, Gorakhpur rejecting the representation dated 12.10.1999 for regularizing the service as a Clerk.
The petitioner was initially appointed as a Seasonal Clerk by the District Cane Officer, Bijnor by the order dated 14.4.1985 in the Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Limited, Noorpur, Bijnor. Subsequently by means of the order dated 8/12-5-1987 the petitioner was appointed as a regular Clerk by the Secretary, Regional Cane Service Authority, Moradabad. However, by the order dated 30/31-5-1988, the Deputy Cane Commissioner and Chairman, Regional Cane Service Authority, Moradabad cancelled the aforesaid order dated 12.5.1987 and reverted the petitioner to his original post of a Seasonal Clerk. The petitioner was then transferred by means of the order dated 5.6.1992 from district Bijnor to the Basti Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti, district Basti where he also worked as a Seasonal Clerk. A representation dated 12.10.1999 was filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Cane Commissioner, Gorakhpur Region for giving him appointment as a permanent Clerk since he had been working as a Seasonal Clerk from 1985. When this representation was not decided, the petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition No. 45803 of 1999 which was disposed of by this Court on 29.10.1999 with a direction to the Deputy Cane Commissioner/Regional Cane Service Authority, Gorakhpur to decide the representation by a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. The said representation dated 12.10.1999 was rejected by the said Authority by means of the order dated 15.2.2000 which has been impugned in the present petition.
I have heard Sri G.R. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.M.N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was entitled to be appointed as a Clerk under Regulation 40 of the U.P. Cane Co-operative Service Regulations, 1975(hereinafter referred to as the ''Regulations') but the representation filed by the petitioner for appointment as a Clerk was rejected in an arbitrary and illegal manner without taking into consideration the provisions of the aforesaid Regulations.
Learned counsel for the respondents, however, placed reliance upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and pointed out that even the initial appointment of the petitioner as a Seasonal Clerk was not valid inasmuch as not only Rule 365 of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 was not applicable to his case since the service conditions of the employees of the Cane Societies are governed by the Regulations referred to above, but even under Rule 365 of the Co-operative Societies Rules, the appointment could be made only by the Registrar of the Societies to meet the urgent exigencies of the work and not by the Assistant Registrar. It was further submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was never approved by the District Cane Service Authority. In these circumstances, it was sought to be contended that when the initial appointment itself was not valid in law, there was no occasion to appoint the petitioner as a Clerk. The impugned order was also sought to be justified.
A perusal of the impugned order indicates that one of the considerations which weighed with the Deputy Cane Commissioner, Gorakhpur was that the petitioner had been appointed as Clerk by the Regional Cane Service Authority, Moradabad and he had also passed the subsequent order reverting the petitioner and, therefore, the matter of appointment as a Clerk was to be dealt by the Regional Cane Service, Moradabad for which purpose the petitioner had filed the representation dated 12.10.1999 before the Deputy Cane Commissioner, Moradabad. The same was, therefore, to be decided by the said Authority at Moradabad. He however proceeded to decide the matter and it has been stated that the financial position of the Sahkari Samiti Limited, Gorakhpur was not very sound and the staffing pattern indicated that there were more Clerks working under the Regional Cane Service Authority, Gorakhpur than the sanctioned strength of Clerks. It is, in these circumstances that the representation filed by the petitioner was rejected.
In the Supplementary Counter Affidavit filed by the respondents it has been stated that the appointment of the Clerks is governed by Regulations 40 of the Regulations referred to above and the Circular dated 24.1.1992.
A perusal of the impugned order indicates that it is absolutely vague. It has not been indicated whether for the purposes of the appointment as Clerk the strength of the Clerks in all the Cane Co-operative Societies has to be taken into consideration or whether only the strength of the Clerks working in the Cane Co-operative Societies of a particular Region is to be taken into consideration. It has also not been stated as to what was the actual strength of the Clerks and how many vacancies existed. The representation filed by the petitioner was required to be decided in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 40 of the Regulations referred to above.
In this view of the matter, the order dated 15.2.2000 passed by the Deputy Cane Commissioner/Chairman, Regional Cane Service Authority, Gorakhpur is liable to be set aside and is set aside. Since a period of five years have lapsed after filing of the representation dated 12.10.1999, the petitioner may file a fresh representation within a period of one month from today which shall be disposed of in accordance with law taking into consideration the provisions of Regulation 40 of the aforesaid Regulations within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as top costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.