Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BANARASI LAL versus V.C., B.H.U. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Banarasi Lal v. V.C., B.H.U. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 165 of 1998 [2005] RD-AH 4301 (18 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

Court No.32

Special Appeal No.165 of 1998

Banarasi Lal vs. Vice Chancellor, B.H.U., Varanasi & others

Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agrawal, J.

This special appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 29.1.1988 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in writ petition no.16806 of 1992 dismissing the same on the ground that since the petitioner was a temporary employee, he had no right to the post.

In brief, the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as casual labourer on 1.3.1985 in Agriculture Department of Banaras Hindu University and worked till 30.8.1986.  Thereafter, he was employed afresh in New Agriculture Hostel, Banaras Hindu University on 21.10.1986 where he worked till 20.5.1989.  The Assistant Registrar, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University vide letter dated 28/30.1.1989, on the basis of the screening committee meeting held on 20.7.1987, sent recommendation to the Assistant Registrar (Administration), Banaras Hindu University recommending the name of the petitioner for absorption in Group ''D' service.  However, it appears that the University did not accept the said recommendation and the petitioner was not allowed to work on and after 21.5.1989.

The facts demonstrate that the petitioner was neither regularized in Group ''D' services at any point of time nor held any post on substantive basis.  He was engaged as a daily wager without holding any selection or undergoing any process wherein other eligible persons were considered for such employment.  In other words, the engagement of the petitioner as a daily wager was the result of pick and choose. A daily wager has no right to continue as he is not a holder of a post.  The petitioner's counsel could not place any statutory provision under which he has a right to claim regularization.  He has worked as daily wager only for some time, i.e. since 1985 to 1989.  It is admitted by the appellant that since 21.5.1989 he has not worked in the University at all.  Therefore, after such a lapse of time there is no occasion to grant any relief to the petitioner.  Even otherwise in the absence of any statutory provision the petitioner cannot claim any mandamus for regularization.

Considering all the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge.  The special appeal has no merit.  It is accordingly dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.

18.10.2005

A.


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.