Writ petition challenging rejection of representation alleging forged employment. Court found assigned advertisements and letters lacked numbers and former officer denied appointments, finding no illegality in rejection. Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Court No. - 28
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 47794 of 2017
Petitioner :- Kayam Singh And 10 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anoop Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
2
representation was kept pending, they preferred Writ Petition No.52685 of 2015 (Kayam Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others), which was disposed of by order dated 15.9.2015 directing the respondent no.3 to decide their grievance. Despite the service of order on the respondent their representation kept pending, as such a Contempt Petition No.1070 of 2016 was filed. That it was in compliance to the order passed in contempt petition that the respondent no.3 decided the representation of the petitioner and the same having been rejected by order dated 7.4.2016.
3
4
of the Nagar Palika Parishad to the earlier Executive Officer, Buddhsen Sharma of the Nagar Palika Parishad who was posted when the alleged appointments are said to have been made. Through the said letter information was sought from Buddhsen Sharma whether he had made the said appointments and whether any such advertisement dated 1.2.2010 was published by him in the daily news paper. The said letter is appended as Annexure No.2 to the counter affidavit. Further he invited the attention to Annexure No.3 at Page 21 of counter affidavit which is the reply to the said letter of Sri Buddhsen Sharma dated 17.3.2016, wherein he has specifically stated that he was posted in Nagar Palika Parishad, Sikandrarau, District Hathras only from July, 2009 to 29th June, 2010 and no appointments were made by him during the said period, nor any advertisement was published by him during the said period. He has further stated that important documents like appointment letter cannot be issued as memo without giving any number and as such the said document appears to be forged. Sri Dwivedi has further submitted that the signature of Buddhsen Sharma on his letter dated 17.3.2016 and on the appointment letters are different.
5
6
been shown outside the column. Similarly, at Page 43, the number is from 133 to 141, then at Page 46 again the names of petitioners are outside the column from S.N. 133 to 141 and at Page 49 the number has increased from 133 to 146 outside the column and so is the case at Page No.52, 55, 58 and 61. Further the clarification sought by the Nagar Palika Parishad from its earlier Executive Officer, Buddhasen Sharma through letter dated 5.3.2016 has been clearly replied through letter dated 17.3.2016, in which the earlier Executive Officer had stated that he had not issued any advertisement nor had issued any appointment letter, he further went on to State that important letters such as appointment letters cannot be issued without mentioning number.
7
given while deciding the representation of the petitioners holding the appointments of the petitioners as forged and invalid does not have force, as it has been rightly proved by the Nagar Palika Parishad that no such appointment was ever made nor any appointment letter was issued by the then Executive Officer not any advertisement was made. As such there was no requirement for conducting any inquiry in the said matter, the case of the Nagar Palika Parishad is very specific that no appointment was made by them in the year 2010 nor any salary has been paid by them from their service employees account, as such no question arises as to giving any opportunity to the petitioners or conducting any enquiry in regard to their appointment.
Order Date :- 27.3.2019 S. Singh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection of petitioners' representation challenging their alleged forged appointments required a pre-decisional enquiry.
Whether the advertisement and appointment letters relied upon by petitioners are genuine.
Kayam Singh And 10 Others
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
