Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

YOGENDRA SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Yogendra Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 64697 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 4090 (5 October 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

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

The petitioner has challenged the undated impugned order passed by the President/Adhyaksha, Zila panchayat, Chitrakoot- respondent no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Zila Panchayat).  It is claimed that by the said order, the petitioner has been reverted from the post of Junior Engineer to the post of Draftsman.

The facts relevant for the purpose of controversy involved in the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Draftsman in the office of Zila Panchayat vide O. M. dated 1.5.1999 issued by the Upper Mukhya Adhikari, subsequently regularized as Draftsman vide order dated 15.5.2000.

It appears from record that Adhyaksha, Zila Panchayat was of the view that funds given by the State Government to Zila Panchayat were not being satisfactorily utilized in the projects/schemes launched by the State Government due to shortage of Junior Engineers in Zila Panchayat.  In the circumstances, the Zila Panchayat passed a resolution dated 16.3.2002 that as the petitioner was a diploma holder in Civil Engineering was authorized to look after the work of Junior Engineer with the rider that he shall be paid wages of his substantive post of Draftsman and not any additional wages. Consequently an order dated 6.6.2002 was issued by the Adhyaksha Zila Panchayat in the following terms :-

"           dk;kZy; ftyk iapk;r] fp=dwV

Ik=kad222@Lfkkiuk@ft0ia0fp0@2002&2003  

                                vkns'k          

    ftyk iapk;r fp=dwV esa 'kkldh; vuqnku ,oa lwfuf'pr@lEiw.kZ xzkeh.k jkstxkj ;kstuk dh ,d yEch /kujkf'k miHkksx gsrq vo'ks"k iMh gqbZ gS A ftlls fodkl dk;kZsa dh izxfr laUrks"ktud ugha gS A ftyk iapk;r esa Lohd`r ekud ds vuqlkj rduhdh LVkQ Hkh ugha gS A bl n`f"Vdks.k ls fuekZ.k dk;ksZ esa laUrks"ktud izxfr ykus ds mnns'; ls ftyk iapk;r dh cSBd fnukad 16&3&2002 esa bl vk'k; dk izLrko ikfjr gks pqdk gS fd Jh ;ksxsUnz flag tks flfoy bUth0 fMIyksek /kkjd gSa muls voj vfHk;urk in dk dk;Z fy;k tk;s rFkk 'kklu ls Lohd`fr izkIr gksus rd bUgsa M`kQVeSu in dk osru fn;k tk;s A

    ,rnOnkjk 'kkldh; vuqnku ,oa lqfuf'pr@lEiw.kZ xzkeh.k jkstxkj ;kstuk dh vo'ks"k /kujkf'k dk le; lhek ds vurxZr miHkksx djus ds n`f"Vdks.k ls ftyk iapk;r fgr esa Jh ;ksxsUnz flag M`kQVeSu ftyk iapk;r fp=dwV dks voj vfhHk;Urk in ds nkf;Roksa ds fuokZgu gsrq vf/kd`r fd;k tkrk gS A blds fy;s bUgsa vfrfjDr osru vkfn dk ykHk ns; ugha gksxk A

                                        g0 (mtsfj;k nsoh )

                                             v/;{k

                                      ftyk iapk;r fp=dwV"                                

In the aforesaid backdrop, the Upper Mukhya Adhikari vide letter dated 30.6.2005 informed the Adhyaksha Zila Panchayat, Chitrakoot that in view of certain complaints made by the Upadhyaksha- Sri Chandra Bhan Singh that work of Junior Engineer is being taken from the petitioner without approval of the State Government is not justified, it would be proper that the work of Junior Engineer be taken from the petitioner only after approval is accorded by the State Government for appointing him on the said post to avoid any arbitrary litigation and complaints so that no adverse orders are passed against him. The operative portion of the letter, on which reliance has been placed by counsel for the petitioner, is as under ;-

"       iwoZ esa vusdks ckj vkidks] 'kklu ,oa mPp vf/kdkfj;ksa dks voxr djk;k x;k gS fd mik/;{k Jh pUnzHkku flag jktuSfrd ,oa O;fDrxr Ons"k Hkkouk o'k v/kksgLrk{kjh ij O;FkZ esa fujk/kkj vkjksi yxkrs jgrs gSa fd Jh ;ksxsUnz flag ls voj vfHk;Urk dk dk;Z vfu;fer #i ls fy;k tk jgk gS tcfd bl tuin esa v/kksgLrk{kjh dh rSukrh ls yxHkx nks o"kZ iwoZ ls ftyk iapk;r fp=dwV dh cSBd esa ikfjr izLrko ,oa vkidh Lohd`fr ds d`e esa dk;Z dh vko';drk ,oa vuqnkuksa ds miHkksx ds n`f"V ls Jh ;ksxsUnz flag M`k QVeSu ls voj vfHk;Urk in dk dk;Z djkusa dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k Fkk A orZeku le; esa Jh ;ksxsUnz flag ls voj vfHk;Urk in dk dk;Z fy, tkus ds laca/k esa mik/;{k Jh pUnzHkku flag Onkjk dh tk jgh f'kdk;rsa ,oa 'kklu Onkjk fu.kZ; u fy, tkus dh ifjfLFkfr esa mfpr gksxk fd 'kklu ls Lohd`fr izkIr gksus ds mijkUr gh Jh ;ksxsUnz flag M`kQVeSu ls dk;Zokgd voj vfHk;Urk dk dk;Z fy;k tk;s ftlls O;FkZ esa mRiUu fd;s x;s fooknksa ,oa f'kdk;rksa ls cpk tk lds rkfd v/kkgLrk{kjh ds fo#) fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ izfrdwy dk;Zokgh u gks A ;/kfi Jh ;ksxsUnz flag dks gVk;s tkus ls voj vfHk;Urk in dk dk;Z izHkkfor gksxk ysfdu mijksDr f'kdk;rksa dks lKku esa ysrs gq, buls voj vfHk;Urk in dk dk;Z u fy;k tk;s A

        vr% vkils vuqjks/k gS fd Jh ;ksxsUnz flag M`kQVeSu ls dk;Zokgd voj vfHk;Urk dk dk;Z ysus lacaf/k iwoZ fuxZr vkns'k ij iquZfopkj dj rRlEcU/kh vkns'k dks fujLr djrs gq, 'kklu dks oLrqfLFkfr ls voxr djkusa dk d"V djsa A

                                                 Hkonh;

                                               G0 vLi"V

                                           vij eq[; vf/kdkjh

                                           ftyk iapk;r] fp=dwV""

Consequent to the aforesaid letter dated 30.6.2005, the President Zila Panchayat Chitrakoot issued the impugned undated order, inter alia, that the petitioner is being directed to work on his substantive post of Draftsman. The order is as under ;-

"                         vkns'k

   vij eq[; vf/kdkjh ftyk iapk;r fp=dwV ds i= la0 640@ft0ia0fp0@2005&2006 fnukad 30&6&2005 ds vk/kkj ij Jh ;ksxsUnz flag dks voj vfHk;Urk ds in ls oafpr fd;k tkrk gS A Jh ;ksxsUnz flag vius iSf=d in M`kQVeSu ij dk;Z djrs jgasxs A

                                              g0 mtsfj;k nsoh  

                                                       v/;{k  

                                                  ftyk iapk;r] fp=dwV""                                                  

                             

In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rattan Lal and others V. State of Haryana and others -(1985)4 SCC-43, a decision of a Division Bench of this Court  in Syed Qumrul Hasan Vs. Buldelkhand University Jhansi and others- Civil Misc. Writ No. 35356 of 1999 decided on 8.9.1999 ; decisions in 2004(5) E.S.C-180 and Inspector General of Registraion, U.P. and another Vs. Avdesh Kumar and others-1996(3)UPLBEC-1744.

Rattan Lal and others (supra) is a case of teachers appointed on ad hoc basis at the commencement of academic year and their services were terminated before next summer vacation or earlier.  They were reappointed on ad hoc basis at the commencement of the next academic session.  The Court held that break in services effected so as to deny them the salary for the summer vacation as also all other benefits to which regular teachers are generally entitled. It was held that the ad hoc teachers subjected to unreasonable and arbitrary hire and fire policy and such policy of ad holism followed by the State Government for a long period resulted in breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.  Accordingly, suitable directions were given in the said case.  Rattan Lal and others case (supra) is clearly distinguishable on the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

So far as the case of Syed Qumrul Hasan Vs. Buldelkhand University Jhansi and others (supra) is concerned, the petitioner in that case had challenged the impugned order dated 24.6.1000 passed by the Vice Chancellor of Bundelkhand University.  By the said order, the Vice Chancellor had directed that one Sri J.J. Singh will officiate as Principal of the Jawahar Lal Nehru Post Graduatw College. Banda. The question involved in that case was appointment of senior most teacher on the post of Principal.  The writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the Committee of Management to consider the entire matter as to who should be appointed as officiating Principal, in accordance with law, after hearing the parties.  The facts and circumstances of Syed Qumrul Hasan Vs. Buldelkhand University Jhansi and others (supra) are clearly distinguishable from those of the present case.

  In Inspector General of Registraion, U.P. and another (supra), even un-qualified persons were permitted to continue till regularly appointed candidates join.  The facts and circumstances of the instant case are different.

Thus, the rulings cited by the counsel for the petitioner are not applicable In the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner has no legal right to claim appointment on the post of Junior Engineer in Zila Panchayat, Chitrakoot.

      It is evident from the order dated 6.6.2002 that the petitioner was directed to look after the work of Junior Engineer also while working on his substantive post of Draftsman.  The order dated 6.6.2002 was passed in anticipation of approval by the State Government and the promotion was to take effect only after the approval was granted to the Zila Panchayat by the State Government. This was a local stopgap arrangement and was not an order of promotion, as such, the petitioner was neither promoted to the post of Junior Engineer in accordance with the prescribed procedure for promotion nor was he granted salary of the post of Junior Engineer. No approval was accorded by the State Government even after two years and repeated reminders by the Zila Panchayat and the petitioner.  Merely because the petitioner was a Diploma holder or was eligible for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer would not entitle him to claim the post by a back door entry without there being any order promoting him in accordance with law.

It is apparent from record that fingers were raised by the Upadhyaksha of the Zila Panchayat, who made repeated complaints regarding this state of affair of taking work of Junior Engineer from the petitioner without approval of the State Government.

Though the petitioner was working on the substantive post of Draftsman and  the order dated 24.9.2005 is not happily worded but the sum and substance is that the petitioner had not been reverted as he was never promoted.   Mere looking after the work, being a technical person, for utilization of funds received from the State Government for development projects will not vest him with legal right to claim appointment on the post of Junior Engineer, particularly in view of the fact that the State Government had not accorded its approval to his appointment. In the letter dated 30.6.2005 it has, therefore, been rightly pointed out  that objections are being raised with regard to petitioner's looking after the projects/schemes as Junior Engineer and in the circumstances, it would be proper to ask him to work on the substantive post of Draftsman held by him.

Since the State Government has not accorded approval to the proposal of the Adhyaksha, Zila Panchayat, Chitrakoot, it has no meaning. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been reverted by the impugned order in the facts and circumstances, has no merits, more so, when the petitioner was not even paid wages of the post of Junior Engineer in terms of the said letter of promotion dated 6.6.2002, aforesaid. The funds of the Zila Panchayat for the purpose of development projects/schemes have admittedly been utilized in last three years since 6.6.2002 and there may not be necessity in the Zila Panchayat for the petitioner to look after the development work of projects/schemes.

There is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned.

For the reasons stated above, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

Dt. 5.10.2005

kkb


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.