Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

UDAI BHAN SINGH AND ANOTHER versus COLLECTOR, AZAMGARH AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Udai Bhan Singh And Another v. Collector, Azamgarh And Others - WRIT - A No. 72104 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 17271 (5 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

          Court No.3

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.72104 of 2005

Udai Bhan Singh and another Vs. Collector, Azamgarh

and others

*******

Hon'ble V.C. Misra, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. On the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being finally decided at the admission stage in terms of the Rules of Court.

The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners applied for the appointment on the post of lekhpal, advertised by the respondents. Being aggrieved by non-selection of the petitioners, the petitioners filed a Writ Petition No.14190 of 1993 challenging the result of the selection.  Vide order dated 28.4.1993 passed by this Court the petitioners were permitted to join the training of the lekhpal and were allowed for the training for the year 1993-94 batch and after completing their training, they appeared in the examination. On the basis of the interim order passed by this Court dated 5.1.1996, the result was declared. However, the writ petition was dismissed in default on 15.11.2000. After the dismissal of the petition for default the respondents passed an order dated 11.1.2001 that as the petition had been dismissed the petitioners could not be appointed on the post of lekhpal. However, the writ petition was restored to its original number on 31.8.2001 and an amendment application was filed by the petitioners on 13.5.2002 though no counter affidavit had been filed by the respondents but on their assurance that if the petitioners withdrew the case then the case of the petitioners would be appointed as lekhpals. The petitioners withdrew the writ petition and this Court directed the petitioners to approach the respondents for redressal of their grievance vide order dated 31.3.2005. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioners filed their undated representation. The respondent no.1 referred the said representation with its recommendation to the Commissioner, Revenue Department U.P. at Lucknow. However, the case of the petitioners was not considered at all in spite of several attempts made by the petitioners before the respondents to consider their case.

Being aggrieved, the petitioners again filed the present writ petition seeking relief in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioners as referred to in the representation (annexure-4 to the writ petition) in the light of the observations made by this Court vide its order dated 31.3.2005 in Writ Petition No.14190 of 1993. This Court vide its order dated 23.11.2005 required the respondents through the standing counsel to bring on record as to whether the representation made by the petitioners had been decided or not and if any order had been passed the same was required to be produced before the Court. In pursuance of the said order, the respondents-State filed its counter affidavit and in paragraphs 17 and 20 categorically denied of any representation of the petitioners having been received by them in pursuance of the order dated 31.3.2005. The petitioners by way of amendment brought two orders dated 31.1.2006 (as annexure-6 to the amendment application) and 16.2.2006 (as annexure-7 to the amendment application) passed by the respondents on record wherein a specific statement is made that the petitioners along with other applicants-petitioners to the Writ Petition No.14190 of 1993 had presented their representation dated 5.1.2006 in pursuance of the order dated 31.3.2005 passed by this Court and a reference is also made to the undated representation filed by the petitioners which had been rejected by the District Magistrate vide its order dated 4.6.2005. In the order dated 16.2.2006 (annexure-7), a reference is made to the above said undated representation of the petitioners rejecting the same.

Learned additional chief standing counsel has been unable to support the averments made in paragraphs 17 and 20 of the counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that no representation whatsoever was filed by the petitioners neither denied the passing of the orders dated 31.1.2006 and 16.2.2006 (annexures-6 & 7 respectively to the amendment application) by the respondents. From the perusal of the said orders dated 31.1.2006 and 16.2.2006, it is found that the respondents have not disposed off the representation of the petitioners on merit by a speaking order but has disposed off the same on the basis of some earlier orders passed by the District Magistrate dated 4.6.2005 and that the result of the petitioners had already been rejected at the initial stage and the Writ Petition No.14190 of 1993 at one stage had also been dismissed in default. Learned additional chief standing counsel has fairly conceded that the said infirmities have been committed while disposing off the said representation.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders dated 31.1.2006 and 16.2.2006 (annexures-6 & 7 respectively to the amendment application) are hereby quashed. The respondent no.4 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioners, if so filed afresh within three weeks from today along with copy of the writ petition, counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit and the amendment applications within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the said representation by a speaking order.

With the above said directions, the writ petition is disposed off finally with no order as to costs.  

October 5, 2006

Hasnain


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.