Allowed

Pushpendra Singh and Another v. District Judge, Firozabad and Another

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2018SPLA/652/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appeal entertaining a challenge to the dismissal of a writ petition for recruitment to Class IV posts. The Court held that employees placed in the approved list under U.P. Rules are entitled to be treated at par with similarly situated candidates who were appointed on a temporary basis against leave vacancies, regardless of whether the appointment letter explicitly stated it was against le

What did the court decide?

The order passed by the single Bench on 23.5.2018 is set aside. Petition for writ is allowed. Respondents directed to employ the appellants as Class IV employees.

Pushpendra Singh and Another Vs District Judge… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 652 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Pushpendra Singh And Another Respondent :- District Judge, Firozabad And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Kamla Kant Mishra,Varun Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Goyal

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶5

A list of 49 class IV employees was prepared by the District Judge, Firozabad as required under Rule 12 of U.P. Subordinate Civil Court Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955. Acted upon the list aforesaid, appointments were given to 36 persons enlisted. The present appellant and two other persons namely Nagendra Singh and Rakesh Pandey approached this Court by way of filing a petition for writ bearing no. 21579 of 1998 with assertion that they were placed in the list of approved candidates at serial nos. 38, 39 and 40, therefore, they are entitled to be appointed in class IV cadre containing the posts of Peon, Process Server, Ardali etc. The petition for writ aforesaid came to be disposed of with a direction to the District Judge, Firozabad to consider and decide the representation submitted by the persons named above. Prior to that appointments were accorded to all the above named persons and one Sri Atar Singh on 17.06.1994 purely on temporary basis. The District Judge, Firozabad in light of the directions given by the Writ Court in petition for writ bearing no. 21579 of 1998 considered the representations submitted by the petitioner and other similarly situated persons and rejected the same on 30.10.1998. The District Judge arrived at the conclusion that the appointments were accorded to the persons concerned against leave vacancies, therefore, those could not have been continued beyond the term of the vacancy concerned.

¶6

Aggrieved by the same the petitioner and 3 others similarly situated persons again approached this Court by way of filing separate petitions for writ. The writ petitions preferred by other persons including one Sri Atar Singh came to be allowed by learned single Bench by arriving at the conclusion that the order of appointment dated 17.06.1994 nowhere discloses that the appointment was given against the leave vacancies and, as such, same was required to be treated temporary one. Learned single Bench also noticed that the petitioner in the case aforesaid was placed in the approved list and that is to be acted upon. The appellant petitioner, who too was standing at the same pedestal preferred a petition for writ challenging the order passed by the District Judge but that has been dismissed under the judgment impugned by arriving at the conclusion that mere placement in the select list does not create any right and, therefore, no appointment could have been given merely on the count that he was an empanelled candidate. Learned single Bench also held that present petitioner would have been on same pedestal vis.a.vis. Atar Singh and other persons but no parity could have been claimed as appointment was made purely on temporary basis against the leave vacancies.

¶7

In appeal the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants petitioners is that appellant no. 1 Pushpendra Singh is at serial no. 40 in the approved list whereas Atar Singh is at serial no. 41 and

¶8

in the same manner appellant no. 2 Nagendra Singh is at serial no. 38 and Rakesh Kumar Pandey, who is working as class IV employee is at serial no. 39. It is asserted that the cases of the present appellants petitioners by no stretch of imagination would have been distinguished in the cases of Rakesh Kumar Pandey and Atar Singh, who are working with the district judgeship in pursuance to the directions given by this Court.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents by meeting with the arguments advanced submits that on 17.06.1994 the appointment was given to all the persons including the present appellants petitioners against leave vacancies and, therefore, none of them were entitled to continue in service beyond the term of the vacancies. It is stated that the fact about the appointment against the leave vacancies was not brought into the notice of the Court while adjudicating the case of Atar Singh.

¶10

We do not find any merit with the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. A bare perusal of the order passed in the case of Atar Singh it is apparent that it was in the knowledge of the Court and the Court arrived at the conclusion that order of appointment nowhere discloses about the appointment of Atar Singh or other similarly situated persons against the leave vacancies. The order of appointment dated 17.06.1994 simply mentions that the appointment shall be on temporary basis. As per Rule 12 of the Rules of 1955 the appellants petitioners were placed in the approved list and, therefore, for availability of the vacancy they are entitled to be considered for appointment in class IV cadre and as a matter of fact in the case of Atar Singh this Court in quite ambiguous term arrived at the conclusion that appointments were on temporary basis and, as such, against the clear vacancy. The appellants petitioners being at the same pedestal are required to be treated at par and, as such, the view taken by learned single Bench is erroneous. The appellants petitioners are entitled to be treated at par with Atar Singh and, as such, they are entitled to be employed as class IV employee in district judgeship Firozabad.

¶11

In view of whatever stated above, appeal is allowed, accordingly. The order dated 23.5.2018 passed by learned single Bench is set-aside. Petition for writ preferred by the appellants petitioners is allowed. Respondents are directed to employ the appellants petitioners as class IV employee by treating them at par with Atar Singh and Rakesh Kumar Pandey.

¶12

No order as to costs.

¶13

Order Date :- 11.9.2018 Shekhar

¶14

[Chandra Dhari Singh, J.] [Govind Mathur, J.]

Pushpendra Singh and Another v. District Judge, Firozabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpendra Singh and Another v. District Judge, Firozabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uttam Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Pankaj Kumar Chaubey and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Nagar Panchayat and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

State of U.P. and 2 Others Vs Hari Narayan Lal and Another

Vijay Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Rafiq Ahmad Vs Additional Labour Commissioner, Kanpur and 3 Others