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


Gajendra Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 2587 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 214 (20 January 2005)


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. 9

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2587 of 2005

Gajendra Singh


State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.

Heard Sri S.D. Dube, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.

The petitioner had earlier filed writ petition No. 24216 of 1993 for regularisation as a Clerk in Forest Department. The writ petition was dismissed on 8.11.2004, on the ground that petitioner's services were terminated on 24.9.1990. Subsequently there was a ban imposed with  the exception for appointment only on the vacancies reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and that the regular selections were started only after 23.12.1991. The petitioner, therefore, could not have claimed the regularisation until the order terminating his services was  set aside. The petitioner did not challenge the  termination order dated 24.9.1990, and thus there was no question of his regularisation. This order was confirmed in Special Appeal No. 1563/2004,  vide judgement dated 10.12.2004.

Now the petitioner has filed this second writ petition challenging the termination order,  which is stated to have been passed on 2.9.1995 on the ground that the order was given to Sri N.K. Shukla, Advocate who subsequently expired. The petitioner could not challenge the termination order on account of incorrect legal advise. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the earlier writ petition was argued by Sri Pankaj Srivastava.

Although, I find that there is no valid explanation for the delay in challenging the order, even  if the termination order is treated to have been  passed on 2.9.1995, the petitioner had filed the earlier  writ petition in the year 1993. He was not in employment after 1995 and that  without setting aside the termination, he could  get regularisation. This ground was taken in Special Appeal, and was not accepted by the Bench.

In para-8 of the writ petition it is stated that the three persons namely Ravindra Rastogi, Rajeev Kumar Singh and Chandan Kumar Srivastava were juniors to him and were regularised. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they were regularised in the year 1991. It is further stated that the work was available  and thus the order terminating petitioners' services was arbitrary. I do not find any material on record to show that there was any regular vacancies in the establishment or  any  work was available when the petitioner was terminated from


service. The termination order as such does not suffer any legal infirmity. The petitioner has not explained as to why the alleged mistake about the date of removal,  in the judgement dated 8.11.2004 was not corrected by making an appropriate correction application or review application.

The issues raised in this writ petition  are barred by constructive res judicata. The writ petition is, accordingly,  dismissed.

Dt. 20.1.2005



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.