Dismissed¶22

Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2022SPLAD/906/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gram Rojgar Sewak; waiting list; waiting list not valid for all times to come; appointment from waiting list six years after selection; approval of list of Gram Rojgar Sewaks; name never approved for appointment; working without remuneration for over seven years without salary dispute; intra-court appeal against Single Judge order dated October 4, 2021; writ petition Writ-A No. 6209 of 2021; communication dated April 30, 2021; Om Prakash resignation 2014; Special Appeal Defective No. 906 of 2021; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Rajesh Bindal, C.J.; Piyush Agrawal, J.; order dated 11.01.2022; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

There is nothing on record to suggest that the name of the appellant was ever approved for appointment as Gram Rojgar Sewak. ¶20

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, whose name was at Serial No.1 in the waiting list of the 2008 selection for the post of Gram Rojgar Sewak and who joined in 2014 after the selected candidate resigned, was entitled to have his name included in the list of Gram Rojgar Sewaks approved vide communication dated April 30, 2021. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

There is nothing on record to suggest that the name of the appellant was ever approved for appointment as Gram Rojgar Sewak.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Any waiting list in a selection process is not valid for all times to come; the claim that the appellant was appointed from the waiting list six years after the selection, on the resignation of the earlier Gram Rojgar Sewak, is unbelievable.

¶20

Key takeaways

It is unbelievable that an employee will work for a period of more than seven years and will not raise any dispute regarding payment of salary (the appellant was paid no remuneration).ratio¶20
No reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge; the appeal is dismissed.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court (Rajesh Bindal, C.J. and Piyush Agrawal, J.) dismissed Special Appeal Defective No. 906 of 2021, arising out of Writ-A No. 6209 of 2021, finding no reason to interfere with the learned Single Judge's order dated October 4, 2021. The appellant claimed to have worked as Gram Rojgar Sewak since June 1, 2014, having been appointed from the waiting list (Serial No.1) of the 2008 selection after the selected candidate, Mr. Om Prakash, resigned, and had challenged the communication dated April 30, 2021 approving the list of Gram Rojgar Sewaks without his name; no remuneration was paid to him. Held: (i) there was nothing on record to suggest that the appellant's name was ever approved for appointment as Gram Rojgar Sewak; (ii) any waiting list in a selection process is not valid for all times to come, and appointment thereunder six years after selection is unbelievable; (iii) it is unbelievable that an employee would work for more than seven years without raising any dispute regarding payment of salary. Appeal dismissed.

¶1

Chief Justice's Court Serial No.33

¶2

**HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD *****

¶3

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 906 of 2021

¶4

(Arising out of Writ-A No. 6209 of 2021)

¶5

Ashok Kumar

¶6

.....Appellant

¶7

Through :- Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate

¶8

v/s

¶9

State of U.P. and 4 Others .....Respondent Through :- Mr. Ankit Gaur, State Law Officer for respondent Nos.1 to 4

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, JUDGE

¶11

ORDER

¶12

C.M. Application No.1 of 2021.

¶13

For the reasons stated in the application, filing of certified copy of the impugned order is exempted.

¶14

The application stands disposed of.

¶15

On Appeal

¶16

Order dated October 4, 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge has been impugned in the present intra-court appeal. The writ petition was filed impugning the communication dated April 30, 2021 vide which the list of Gram Rojgar Sewaks was approved in which the name of the appellant was not mentioned.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant claimed that the appellant was working as Gram Rojgar Sewak since June 1, 2014. In the selection process for the aforesaid post carried out in the year 2008, one Mr. Om Prakash was selected and the name of the appellant was at Serial No.1 in the waiting list. As Mr. Om Prakash resigned in the year 2014, the appellant was permitted to join as Gram Rojgar Sewak and he is

¶18

2 SPLAD No. 906 of 2021

¶19

continuing since then. No remuneration is being paid to him. In the list approved vide impugned communication dated April 30, 2021, the name of the appellant was not mentioned.

¶20

After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any reason to interfere in the present appeal. Learned Single Judge has specifically recorded that after the selection of the Gram Rojgar Sewaks, due process regarding approval of the list was not followed. There is nothing on record to suggest that the name of the appellant was ever approved for appointment as Gram Rojgar Sewak. This is also unbelievable that an employee will work for a period of more than seven years and will not raise any dispute regarding payment of salary. Otherwise, claim set up by the learned counsel for the appellant that on account of resignation of earlier Gram Rojgar Sewak, the appellant was appointed from the waiting list six years thereafter. Any waiting list in a selection process is not valid for all times to come.

¶21

For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶22

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶23

(Piyush Agrawal, J.) (Rajesh Bindal, C.J.)

¶24

Allahabad 11.01.2022 Rakesh/Kuldeep

¶25

Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No

Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

In Re - Secretary High Court Bar Association Allahabad Vs

Kishan Pal Singh Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Others

C/M Bharashtrachar Virodhi Samaj Kalyan Sansthan and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Others

Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj Kanpur University and Another Vs Ajeet Pratap Singh and 41 Others

Sarvesh Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dilip Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others