Dismissed

Tej Bal Singh and Others v. Rajeev Shukla and Another

Allahabad HC22 May 2019SPLA/468/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed a special appeal, relying on a prior judgment (Special Appeal No. 599 of 2018) that had correctly decided the underlying dispute regarding arbitrary non-appointment of candidates in a stenographer selection process. Subsequently, the court recalled an order dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with reference to the Division Bench judgment dated 23.02.2018; however, an order dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution was recalled.

Tej Bal Singh and Others Vs Rajeev Shukla and Another — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 468 of 2010

¶3

Appellant :- Tej Bal Singh And Others Respondent :- Rajeev Shukla And Another Counsel for Appellant :- K.M. Misra,Ashok Kumar Singh,H.R. Misra,Narendra Kumar,Nikhil Kumar,Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- H.N. Pandey, ,Ashish Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri S. N. Pandey, learned counsel for appellants and Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for respondents.

¶6

This intra Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1952") has arisen from judgment and order dated 11.03.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.47676 of 2002.

¶7

Dispute raised in this appeal relates to selection on the post of Stenographers (Hindi) in the Judgeship of Azamgarh.

¶8

Counsel for parties admitted that present appellants were respondents 4 to 8 in a earlier matter and their case is already covered by Division Bench judgment of this Court dealing with same selection being Special Appeal no.599 of 2010 (Shesh Nath Singh vs. Rajeev Shukla and others) decided on 23.02.2018. Judgment reads as under :

¶9

"1. Order dated 11.3.2010 having been recalled vide order of date passed on Recall Application, special appeal is restored to its original number.

¶10

2. As requested and agreed by learned counsel for parties, we proceed to hear and decide this case at this stage.

¶11

3. Heard Sri Ashish holding brief of Sri H.N. Pandey learned counsel for respondents.

¶12

4. This is an intra court appeal filed on behalf of Sri Shesh Nath Singh, respondent no. 3 challenging judgment and order dated 11.3.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ A No. 47676 of

¶13

2002.

¶14

5. It is stated that eight vacancies of stenographer were advertised. Ratan Pal Singh, respondent no. 3 and Shesh Nath Singh, appellant were at serial nos. 7 and 8, respectively, of select list. However, learned District Judge concerned arbitrarily made appointments and left two vacancies unfilled without any valid reason.

¶15

6. Ratan Pal Singh, respondent 3, in aforesaid writ petition, made application on 20.9.2001 whereupon District Judge concerned called for report and thereafter passed an order on 20.10.2001 that select list stood exhausted, in view of Court's Circular referred therein.

¶16

7. On 7.12.2001 Senior Administrative Officer submitted report stating that two selected candidates have not been appointed. The appointment letter was issued on 10.12.2001. Appointment of appellant and respondent no. 3 was challenged by one Rajiv Shukla who was in waiting list i.e. at serial no. 9 of select list.

¶17

8. Learned Single Judge has set aside appointment of appellant and respondent 3 on the ground that once District Judge concerned passed order, stating that select list has exhausted, it was not open to him to appoint appellant and respondent 3 subsequently on 10.12.2001.

¶18

9. It is contended by learned counsel for appellant that nonappointment of appellant and respondent 3 by District Judge concerned was wholly arbitrary, inasmuch as, name of appellant and respondent 3 figured in select list and there was no provision under Rules prescribing period of select list, therefore, said select list could not have exhausted on 20.10.2001 since all appointments on the vacancies advertised were not made by District Judge concerned, illegally.

¶19

10. Despite repeated query by learned counsel appearing for District Judge-respondent 2 could not explain why appointment of appellant and respondent 3 were not made though their name stood at serial nos. 7 and 8 of select list and number of vacancies advertised were also 8.

¶20

11. Sri H.N. Pandey appearing for petitioner-respondent no. 1 has submitted that reason given for non-appointment was that once appointment not made within one year, select list stood exhausted and hence there was no occasion to make appointment of appellant and respondent 3 and learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the order.

¶21

12. Having considered the matter carefully, we are of the opinion that non-appointment of appellant and respondent 3 by District Judge was arbitrary, inasmuch as, there was no justification for him for not

¶22

appointing appellant and respondent 3 despite the fact that their names figured at serial nos. 7 and 8 and number of vacancies advertised/notified were also 8.

¶23

13. Moreover, from record it does not appear as to when, select list was signed by District Judge concerned. We find no reason for denying appointment to appellant-respondent. Learned Single Judge has erred in law in setting aside appointment of appellant and respondent 3 in this appeal. Order of learned Single Judge, therefore, cannot sustain and liable to be set aside in so far as it has quashed appointment of respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petition.

¶24

13. Appeal is partly allowed. Judgment dated 11.3.2010 is modified to the extent that in the operative part of judgment of learned Single Judge where it has stated that "appointment of respondents 2 to 8 is quashed" shall stand modified and shall be read as "appointment of respondents 4 to 8 are quashed". "

¶25

By aforesaid judgment appointment of respondents 4 to 8 have been quashed. Respondents 4 to 8 are appellants in present appeal and in view thereof, following aforesaid Division Bench's judgment dated 23.02.2018 passed in Special Appeal No.599 of 2010, Shesh Nath Singh (supra), this appeal is dismissed in terms of aforesaid judgment.

¶26

Order Date :- 22.5.2019

¶27

Manish Himwan

¶28

Court No. - 34

¶29

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 468 of 2010

¶30

¶31

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶32

In Ref : Civil Misc. Recall Application No.01 of 2019

¶33

This is an application for recall of order dated 11.04.2019, whereby appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶34

Heard Sri S. N. Pandey, learned counsel for applicants-applicants and learned Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for respondents.

¶35

Cause shown for absence of learned counsel for applicants-appellants is sufficient. Order dated 11.04.2019 is recalled and appeal is restored to its original number.

¶36

Application is accordingly allowed.

¶37

Order Date :- 22.5.2019 Manish Himwan

Tej Bal Singh and Others v. Rajeev Shukla and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tej Bal Singh and Others v. Rajeev Shukla and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Kavita Yadav Vs C/M. C.K.I.C. and Others

Y.K. Mishra Vs Nagar Maha Palika

Smt. Shashi Srivastava Vs Rohit Kumar and Others

U.P. Public Service Commission Allahabad Vs Neena Chaturvedi

State of U.P. and Others Vs C/M Sri Bhagirathi Mharaj Purva Mdhyamik Vidyalaya

Mahesh Chandra Vs State of U.P. through Medical Secretary and Others