Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KRISHNA KUMAR GAUTAM versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECRE. MINISTRY OF HOME AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Krishna Kumar Gautam v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secre. Ministry Of Home And Another - WRIT - A No. 73188 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 19594 (20 November 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 73188 of 2005

Krishna  Kumar Gautam

Versus

State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Petitioner claims that he had been engaged as cook since 06.10.1995. Petitioner has contended that various vacancies were sought to be filled up in Bareilly Zone, Lucknow Zone, Kanpur Zone, and Meerut Zone for the post of cooks. Petitioner has contended that Circular was issued on 02.11.2002  by the Police Head Quarters, Allahabad to all the Range Deputy Inspector Generals of Police, providing therein, that in case there are incumbents who are working as class IV employees in the respective zones, they be accorded preference in appointments. It was also mentioned therein that vacancies occurring after 31.12.2001 must not be included in the same. Petitioner has contended that he approached the respondents for providing him employment, but as nothing was done, he preferred writ petition No.28088 of 2003, and ultimately, said writ petition was disposed of on 07.04.2005 with direction to consider the matter. Thereafter, matter had been adverted to, and it has been mentioned that in future whenever vacancies would occur, in the event of petitioner's fulfilling requisite eligibility criteria, his claim  would be adverted to. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

Counter affidavit has been filed and therein it has been contended that petitioner has worked as avajidar cook with effect from  2000, and as there was ban on appointments after February, 2002, as such no daily wager has been appointed.  It has been contended that avajidars working in the Police Lines were already given preference and out of 18 posts 11 were from amongst avajidar cooks. It has been contended that selection had been made in accordance with law, and claim of petitioner was also be considered on priority basis.

To this counter affidavit rejoinder affidavit has been filed, and therein statement of fact mentioned in the counter affidavit has been rebutted that that of writ petition has been reiterated.

After pleadings aforementioned have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.

Sri Shashi Kant Upadhyaya, learned counsel  for the petitioner, has contended with vehemence that petitioner has been meted with arbitrary treatment , and  in all eventuality, he was entitled to be given preference in appointment, but here, in the present case said preference has not at all been accorded, and the order passed by this Court has been dealt with in most casual manner, as such writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Learned  Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has contended that selected candidates have not been impleaded and arrayed as respondents, as such relief which has been claimed  is uncalled for, and by no stretch of imagination, the same can be accorded.

After respective arguments have been advanced, the factual position which emerges is to the effect that in the present case in the selection proceedings which had been undertaken, out of 18 posts 11 were from amongst avajidar cooks. It has been contended that selection had been made in accordance with law. None of the selected candidates has been arrayed and impleaded as respondent, as such no effective relief can be accorded to the petitioner, coupled with the fact, it has been clearly mentioned that in future whenever vacancy would occur, claim of petitioner shall be considered on priority basis. Thus in future, interest of petitioner stands protected.

Writ petition is misconceived, consequently, the same is dismissed.

20.11.2006

SRY


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.