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


Santu v. The Authorized Controller & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 787 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 17483 (10 October 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).


CJ's Court

Special Appeal No.787 of 2006



The Authorized Controller/District Magistrate, Attara Post Graduate College, Attara, District Banda and others

Counsel for the appellant: 1. Sri P..S. Baghel, Adv.

Counsel for the respondents: 1. Sri B.P. Singh, Adv.

2. Standing Counsel


Hon'ble Ajoy Nath Ray, CJ.

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and the learned Standing Counsel.

This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 10th of August, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.

The appellant filed a writ petition challenging an advertisement dated 2nd June, 1999 for filing up certain Class-IV posts. The appellant's claim in the writ petition was that he was engaged on a consolidated salary of Rs.100/- per month in 1981 and has been working in the hostel attached to the College as a Sweeper. The appellant's case is that there were several Class-IV vacancies, on which he was entitled to be regularized. Learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to an earlier order of this Court dated 29.8.1991 passed in the writ petition filed by the appellant, by which order, this Court directed the authorities to consider the claim of the writ petitioner-appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the hostel is a part of the College and the appellant, who was working in the hostel, as a Sweeper on a consolidated salary was entitled to be considered for regularization. Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on a Apex Court judgment reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1: Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others, specifically paragraph 53.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 refuting the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was not working against any sanctioned post. He further contends that the appellant was working in the hostel and there was no sanctioned post in the hostel; hence the appellant cannot be considered for regularization. He submits that the appellant is working on a consolidated salary paid from the hostel funds, and is not entitled to be regularized.

We have considered the submission and perused the records.

Learned Single Judge has in the impugned judgment and order held  that the appellant was not engaged against any sanctioned post in the hostel. He has recorded a finding of fact that there was no sanctioned post of the Sweeper in the hostel nor any document has been on record to indicate that there is any sanctioned post in the hostel.

From the papers, which have been filed before us, we have also noticed that the Principal himself in his letter dated 12.4.1999 has requested for creation of two posts in the hostel. The appellant's own letter dated 3.7.2000, which is at page 77 of the paper book before us, indicates that the post of Sweeper of the College fell vacant on 30.6.2000 due to retirement of one Sumera. He prayed for his regularization against the said vacant post. From the material facts, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly recorded a finding that there are no sanctioned posts in the hostel and the appellant was engaged on a consolidated salary in the hostel and his work is confined to the hostel. Reliance placed by the the learned counsel for the appellant on paragraph 53 of Umadevi (supra) case, is also misplaced. In paragraph 53, the Apex Court has observed that those  irregularly appointed employees, who are functioning for the last ten years in duly sanctioned posts may be considered as one-time measure by the State Government for regular appointment. The said judgment does not render any help to the appellant since the appellant has not been working against any sanctioned post.  It has been laid down by the Apex Court in Umadevi (supra) judgment that the casual or daily wagers who are working since long does not have any right for claiming regular appointment.

We do not find any error in the impugned judgment, dismissing the writ petition.

However, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that one post of Sweeper, which fell vacant on 30.6.2000 has not yet been filled up. He further submits that the said post fell vacant after the advertisement, which was impugned in the writ petition. In event, the said post of Sweeper has not yet been filled up, it will be open for the appellant to compete against the said post for recruitment. On account of long working of the appellant in the hostel, we only direct that the appellant be given age relaxation for enabling him to compete against the said vacant post. However the said recruitment shall be made in accordance with the relevant statute and with the approval of the appropriate competent authority.

Except as indicated above, the appeal 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.