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


Aditya Prakash Sharma v. Union Of India And Others - WRIT - A No. 75482 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 7381 (13 December 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).



Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.75482 of 2005

Aditya Prakash Sharma


Union of India & Ors.

Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad dated 01.09.2005 by which the application of the petitioner for issuing a direction to the respondents to regularise his services on the post he had been appointed on ad hoc basis, has been rejected.

The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Store Keeper-cum-Clerk in 1978. He was promoted as  Senior Store Keeper and was subsequently appointed on the post of Technical Assistant on ad hoc basis. Subsequently, it came to the notice of the authorities that he was wrongly appointed as the said post was to be filled up either by transfer on deputation or by direct recruitment but there was no provision to fill up any vacancy by way of promotion. The respondents therefore rectified the said mistake which was challenged before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner on the basis that if he had wrongly been appointed by oversight and his appointment on the said post was made dehors the statutory provisions, there was no requirement to protect the same.

It is not disputed by Shri R.M. Saggi, learned counsel for the petitioner that the 50 percent posts were to be filled by deputation/transfer on deputation and 50 percent by direct recruitment and there is no provision of promotion. In view of the fair admission by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court while deciding Civil Appeal No. 3009 of 1989 had issued a direction for regularisation on the substantive post in the Ministry of Textile. The ratio of the said case is not applicable as the facts are quite distinguishable and it was not the case set up by the Department that the promotion had been made dehors the statutory provisions. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the said judgment has no bearing on the facts and circumstances of the present case. Petition is devoid of any 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.