Dismissed

Satish Kumar and Others v. D.I.O.S. Meerut and Others

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2020SPLA/821/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the special appeal against a Single Judge order which dismissed a writ petition. The appellants challenged the cancellation of their appointments as Class-IV employees based on surplus posts determined in a 1989 audit. The court found that the appellants failed to demonstrate that the posts existed at the time of their appointment.

What did the court decide?

The special appeal was dismissed; no interference with the impugned order required.

Satish Kumar and Others Vs D.I.O.S. Meerut and Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 4 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 821 of 2002 Appellant :- Satish Kumar And Others Respondent :- D.I.O.S. Meerut And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Rajiv Gupta,Navaneet Kumar Shukla

¶2

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶4

This special appeal is directed against the order dated 16.07.2002 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court by which Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.18649 of 1998 preferred by the petitioners-appellants before this Court with a prayer to quash the order dated 12/13.02.1998 passed by the District Inspector of Schools was dismissed. Before the writ court it was contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants were appointed as Class-IV employees in Devnagri Inter College, Meerut. By the order impugned the District Inspector of Schools has cancelled the appointments made on ten posts of Class-IV employees on the ground that the aforesaid posts had been declared as surplus in the Financial Audit held in the year 1989. He next contended that the decision declaring the said posts as surplus in the Financial Audit of 1989 was taken in gross violation of the principles of natural justice without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners-appellants and the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

¶5

Learned Standing Counsel had submitted before the writ court that it was an admitted fact that the petitioners-

¶6

appellants were appointed against the posts which had been declared surplus as far back as in the year 1989 in the Financial Audit held in the same year, hence no fault can be found with the impugned order inasmuch as on the date of the appointment of the petitioners-appellants in the Institution, no vacant posts hence no interference with the impugned order is warranted.

¶7

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record, we find that the learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants has failed to demonstrate that the posts against which the petitionersappellants were appointed, were existing on the date of their appointment.

¶8

No interference with the impugned order is required. The special appeal lacks merit and stands dismissed.

¶9

Order Date :- 8.1.2020/P.S.Parihar

Satish Kumar and Others v. D.I.O.S. Meerut and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar and Others v. D.I.O.S. Meerut and Others

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

Ram Ratan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Javir Ali Vs Government of India and 4 Others

Karan Singh and 16 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Executive Engineer Construction Vs Sri Siripat Yadav and Others

The Branch Manager the Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. Sonebhadra Vs Smt. Anarkali Devi and 5 Others

Mahesh Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another