Allowed

Sujan Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC23 Oct 2018WRIA/22077/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of candidature for Ziladar exam due to lack of five-year continuous service. Court held that prior service should be counted despite a temporary reversion order, quashing the rejection order and directing eligibility reassessment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; matter revisited by competent authority to consider petitioner's candidature based on service rendered between 2004 and 2015.

Sujan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 26

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22077 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Sujan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 13th September, 2018 passed by 3rd respondent, whereby the petitioner's candidature for the qualifying the examination against the post of Ziledar has been rejected on the ground that he does not have five years continuous service as Seench Parvekshak to his credit to make him eligible for qualifying examination of Ziledar.

¶6

Under the impugned order it is recorded that he was promoted as Seench Parvekshak from the post of Seenchpal on 24th February, 2000. However, following judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Rajesh Kumar and others in Civil Appeal No. 2608 of 2011 dated 27th July, 2012 he was reverted from the post of Seench Parvekshak to Seenchpal on 1st September, 2015 and thereafter he was again given posting as Seench Parvekshak on 9th February, 2016 and, therefore, according to the impugned order, the petitioner has not completed five years continuous service from 2016 till date so as to make him eligible for the qualifying the examination of Ziledar.

¶7

The petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order on the ground that though he was promoted again on 9th February, 2016 but as a matter of fact his promotion related back to the initial promotion on 24th February, 2000 and due to subsequent regularization order passed on 14th July, 2004 he continued as Seench Parvekshak until the order was passed on 1st September, 2015 reverting him as Seenchpal.

¶8

According to him he was wrongly reverted so he challenged reversion order before this Court vide Writ Petition No. 988 of 2016 in which this Court vide order dated 12th January, 2016 asked the respondent to file counter affidavit. Instead of filing any counter affidavit in the writ petition, the petitioner was virtually reinstated by way of promotion under the order dated 9th February, 2016. Neither the period for which he has already worked from 2004 to 2015 has been held to be an illegal promotion nor, any order of recovery has been issued in respect

¶9

of the salary drawn by him on the promoted post and the petitioner worked on the post on permanent basis. Meaning thereby the respondents have accepted the petitioners' posting on permanent basis on promotional post of Seench Parvekshak from 2004 to 2015. His promotion under the order dated 9th February, 2016 will, according to him, not render his earlier working from 2004 to 2016 on permanent basis as illegal or otherwise of no legal consequence.

¶10

The Irrigation Department Ziladars' Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1963') that are applicable to the petitioner, vide sub-Rule 3 of Rule 15 it provides that for the purposes of qualifying examination one must have completed five years of continuous service as Amin in the department. The literal interpretation of the provision would be that an employee must have five years of continuous period of service to his credit to make him eligible to appear in the qualifying examination. Even if it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner was promoted second time in 2016, his continuance in service from 2000 to 2015 as Seench Parvekshak will not become insignificant and applying the provisions of Rules, 1963 in terms of golden rule of interpretation that the provisions have to be read as simple as they are, the literal interpretation would cover the claim of the petitioner. The period of service rendered by the petitioner as Seench Parvekshak, therefore, in the opinion of Court make him eligible for the qualifying examination.

¶11

In my considered opinion, therefore, the view taken under the impugned order is clearly unsustainable and the same is hereby quashed.

¶12

In view of the above, the matter is required to be revisited by the competent authority, namely, 3rd respondent keeping in view and giving full weightage to the period rendered by the petitioner between 2004 and 2015 as Seench Parvekshak so as to consider his candidature for appearance in the qualifying examination for the post of Ziledar.

¶13

A necessary decision shall be taken by the 3rd respondent before commencement of the qualifying examination which is scheduled to begin from 13th November, 2018.

¶14

The writ petition succeeds and is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.

¶15

Order Date :- 23.10.2018 Atmesh

Sujan Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujan Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balwant Singh (Deceased) and 4 Others Vs Shanti Prakash (Deceased) and 6 Others

Keshav Nath Vs Mukti Narayan Chaturvedi

ramesh chand yadav Vs amita and 3 Ors.

Shyam Bahadur Singh Vs Kaula Devi (Since Deceased) and 3 Ors.

Shambhu Nath Vs Jeet Narain Vishwakarma and Another

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Meera Devi and Others