Dismissed

Dhananjay Kumar Dixit and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC28 Jan 2022SPLAD/749/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This intra-court appeal challenges the Single Judge's order dismissing a writ petition by contractual Guest Lecturers seeking regularization and permanent absorption. The bench held that no direction for regularization exists post-Uma Devi SC ruling and dismissed the claim for continued service as the appointees were not replaced by newer contractual hires upon regular selection.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for regularization, permanent absorption, and continuation of service was dismissed.

Dhananjay Kumar Dixit and 3 Others Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Serial No. 13

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 749 of 2021 (In Writ-A No. 7688 of 2020)

¶4

Appellant :- Dhananjay Kumar Dixit and others Respondent :- State of U.P. and others

¶5

Counsel for Appellant :- Mr. Vinod Kumar Singh, Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- Mr. Ankit Gaur, Standing Counsel

¶6

Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal,Chief Justice Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶7

The challenge in the present intra-court appeal is to the order dated September 29, 2020 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the writ petition filed by petitioners was dismissed.

¶8

The prayer made by the appellants is that they were appointed as 'Guest Lecturer' on contract basis way back in the year 2013 and were regularly continued in service till 2019. They claimed that their case for absorption in service should have been considered as even after regular selection, vacancies are still available in the department. Further prayer is made that till such time all the vacancies are regularly filled up, they should be allowed to continue in service.

¶9

After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we not find any case is made out for interference in the present appeal. As far as regularization or absorption of the appellant in service is concerned, after the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi and 3 others; 2006 (1) SCC 1 , no direction can be issued to the State for regularization of the services of the appellant or their permanent absorption. So far as, the claim of the appellant that they should be allowed to continue in service till regular selection is made, we do not find any merit in that argument as well for the reason that it is not a case in which the appellants, who were appointed on contractual basis and continued as such, till the year 2019 are being replaced by any other contractual employee. They were removed from service only after regular selections process was initiated by the U.P. Public Service Commission and more than 600 appointments were made on regular basis.

¶10

-2-

¶11

For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶12

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶13

Date :- 28.1.2022 Shiraz/SA

¶14

(Prakash Padia, J.) (Rajesh Bindal, C.J.)

Dhananjay Kumar Dixit and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhananjay Kumar Dixit and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

Aditya Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Fareeda Begum and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rajesh Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Pramod Kumarand Gupta and 20 Others Vs National Highway Authority of India and 2 Others

Indumati Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Surendra Kumar Singh Vs the State of U.P. and 5 Others