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


Sanjay Kumar Gupta And Others v. D.J., Shahjahanpur And Others - WRIT - A No. 74399 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 14704 (29 August 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. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 74399 of 2005

Sanjay Kumar Gupta and others


District Judge, Shahjahanpur,  and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Petitioners have approached this Court questioning the validity of the decision dated 07.06.2005, taken by District Judge, Shahjahanpur, refusing to provide appointment to the petitioners on ad-hoc basis in Fast Track Courts, and communication of the same vide order dated 14.06.2005.

Brief background of the case, as disclosed in the writ petition, is that earlier petitioners had approached this Court through writ petition No.34880 of 2004, Sanjay Kumar Gupta and others Vs. District Judge, Shahjahanpur,  and others and writ petition No.39110 of 2004, Sanjay Kumar Gupta and others Vs. District Judge, Shahjahanpur, and others. This Court on 02.12.2004 directed that petitioners discontinuance in Fast Track Courts was not justifiable and they were entitled to continue till Fast Track Courts were in existence. Against the said judgment of learned Single Judge dated 02.12.2004 Special Appeal No. 85 of 2005 had been preferred by District Judge, Shahjahanpur. The Special appeal Bench passed following order, which is being quoted below:

"This Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 2/12/2004 by which the writ petition filed by all the three respondents has been partly allowed to the extent that the order of their disengagement has been quashed.

The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal have elaborately been mentioned by the learned Single Judge. The said respondents were appointed as Readers/Peshkars in the Fast Tract Court in District Shahjahanpur.

Admittedly, no advertisement has been issued for filling up the said vacancies. The respondents had been disengaged in view of the fact that certain Courts in the said District Judgeship became vacant and the staff of the said Courts became surplus, therefore, it was considered necessary to make the disengagement of the respondents and accommodate the said staff therein. The learned Single Judge has allowed the petition so far as their disengagement is concerned only on the ground that their disengagement was tantamount to discrimination as persons junior to them have been retained in service, though appointed in a similar manner.  

There is agreement at the bar that if regular employees in the establishment of the District Judgeship are surplus and are available to be posted as Peshkars in the Fast Track Courts, the temporary/adhoc employees engaged in the Fast Track Courts should make the rooms for them. In case of the ad-hoc employees, engaged either in the Fast Track Court or other Courts in the District Judgeship, of Shahjahanpur, are concerned, the principle of last come first go should be adopted as the employees working on adhoc basis, and appointed without advertising the vacancy cannot claim a right to hold the post.

In view of the above, we dispose of this special appeal with the request to the Learned District Judge Shahjahanpur to examine as to whether there are regular employees in the District Judgeship, Shahjahanpur available for posting as Peshkars in the Fast Track Courts, and if not and the ad-hoc employees are to be posted in the  Fast Track Courts, the persons having longer tenure in service should be retained and  disengagement, to the extent if is necessary be made by adopting the principle of last come first go. This exercise may be undertaken within a period of three weeks from the filing a certified copy of this order before him."      

Pursuant to order passed by this Court, petitioners represented their matter and thereafter impugned order in question has been passed by District Judge, Shahjahanpur.

On presentation of writ petition, original record was directed to be produced. On the matter being taken up today original record has been perused. The order dated 07.06.2005 passed by District Judge, Shahjhanpur reflects that  in regular side of the judgeship, 12 courts are lying vacant and on account of this fact surplus staff is in existence. In view of this categorical finding of fact, petitioners' claim has been rejected. The order which has been passed by the District Judge, Shahjahanpur is strictly in the line of the direction issued by Special appeal Bench, and  consequently, no fault can be found in the same.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that seven Fast Track Courts are functioning, and they are entitled to be appointed on ad-hoc basis. As per directives of the Special Appeal Bench, in the event of surplus staff being in existence, work should be taken from them in Fast Track Courts, and not from the petitioners. Consequently, there is no  error in the decision taken by the District Judge. Writ petition lacks merit and the same is 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.