Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

A.K.MALAVIYA, SURENDRA KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


A.K.Malaviya, Surendra Kumar v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 55110 of 2003 [2005] RD-AH 3419 (23 September 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.6

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55110 of  2003

Surendra Kumar........................................................Petitioner

Versus

State of U.P. and others..................................................Respondents.

       ********

Hon.Tarun Agarwala,J.

Heard Sri A.K.Malaviya, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Rai, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

An advertisement was made on 30.8.2001 inviting applications for the post of Stenographer in which the petitioner applied and was appointed on a temporary basis  by an order dated 11.12.2001. The fact, that the petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis, on a substantive vacancy, on the basis of an advertisement issued on 30.8.2001, is admitted by the respondent in their counter affidavit. The petitioner's services were dispensed with under the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules of 1975 by an order dated 17.11.2003 on the ground that his services are no longer required. The petitioner has challenged this action of the respondents by means of this writ petition.

In the counter affidavit, the respondents have alleged that the services of the petitioner was not extended by the State Government. From a perusal of the Annexure CA-1, dated 29.5.2003, it transpires, that one additional post for appointment on the post of Stenographer was requested by the authorities in September, 2001. In paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit it is alleged, that there was only one post in which Sri Rajesh Misra was working. It is not known as to whether Sri Rajesh Misra was   working  on a  substantive vacancy or  that  Sri Rajesh Misra was duly recommended by a Selection Committee or not. In any case, the stand taken by the respondents, that since there was only one vacancy and, since Rajesh Misra was working earlier, therefore, the services of the petitioner was dispensed with, is wholly incorrect, inasmuch as, the respondents have not denied, that pursuant to the vacancy advertised in August, 2001, the petitioner was appointed by an order dated 11.12.2001. Further from a perusal of Annexure CA-1 it indicates, that based on an additional requirement of a stenographer  an advertisement was issued in August, 2001 in which the petitioner was selected. The vacancy referred in the counter affidavit cannot obviously relate to the vacancy in which the petitioner was appointed. Consequently, the order dismissing the petitioner is wholly erroneous and is set aside.

The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 17.11.2003 is quashed and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post on which he was working.

Dated: 23.9.2005

AKJ


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.