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


Rajendra Prasad Mishra v. State Public Service Tribunal Lko And Others - WRIT - A No. 8288 of 1997 [2006] RD-AH 10206 (24 May 2006)


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.37

Civil Misc.Writ Petition No.8288 of 1997

Rajendra Prasad Misra  


State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow and others


Hon.Sanjay Misra, J.

The petitioner, according to his own showing, was appointed on adhoc basis on the post of Assistant Auditor by means of appointment letter dated 20.7.1976, after a selection conducted on the basis of an interview after inviting the names from the Employment Exchange. However, his services were dispensed with vide order dated 8.11.1976. He was again appointed on 17.2.1977 as Assistant Auditor and  continued to work without any break. The appointment made on 17.2.1977 was initially for the period upto 28.2.1978 which was subsequently extended from time to time. He was regularized on the post of Assistant Auditor  vide order dated 10.8.1984 passed by the Director, Local Funds Accounts under the provisions of U.P. Regularisation of Adhoc Appointments ( On post within the purview of Public Service Commission) Rules 1979. The regularization was done treating the petitioner in service on adhoc basis since 1977. Till regularization,  petitioner kept silent and after his regularization, the petitioner made representation which was rejected by the State Government  vide order dated 20.5.1986. The petitioner approached this court by filing Writ Petition No.14011 of 1986 praying for quashing the order


dated 8.11.1986 as also the order dated 20.5.1986 and 27.5.1986. The writ petition was dismissed by this court vide judgment and order dated 7.12.1993 on the ground of alternative remedy being available to the petitioner by way of claim  petition before U.P. Public Service Tribunal. The petitioner, therefore, preferred the claim petition which was registered as  Claim Petition No.130 of 1994. The Tribunal vide order dated 24.12.1996 has dismissed the claim petition on the ground of laches. The order dated 24.12.1996 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

We have heard  learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the persons junior to the petitioner who were appointed alongwith the petitioner  had been retained in service and had been allowed to continue to work on adhoc basis. According to him, the order dated 8.11.1976 dispensing with the services of the petitioner was illegal and has been passed without jurisdiction.  He further submitted that the order of appointment dated 17.2.1977 has been issued  without following the due procedure of law as neither any selection was held nor names of the persons were called from the Employment Exchange. He further submitted that  the petitioner made several representations for redressal of his grievance but the view taken by the Tribunal on the  representations is incorrect.


Having given our anxious consideration to the submissions raised by  learned counsel for the petitioner we find that the   order dated 8.11.1976 has been challenged by the petitioner after a long time i.e. about nine years. It seems that after  the petitioner has been regularized the petitioner realized his mistake and then made representation and the same have been rejected. Therefore, the  order passed by the  Tribunal dismissing the claim petition of the petitioner can not be  said   tobe illegal. So far as the argument with regard to appointment letter dated 17.2.1977  is concerned that this order is for reinstatement of the petitioner, this submission is misconceived. This order has independently been issued and it is not an order of reinstatement of the petitioner. We do not want to enter into the illegality or validity of the order dated 17.2.1977.

In  view of the foregoing discussion the writ petition lacks merit  and is accordingly dismissed.




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.