Allowed

Pushpendra Kumar Nim v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2022WRIA/11389/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought cancellation of order cancelling his provisional appointment as Lecturer due to failure to join amidst pandemic. Court set aside order allowing petitioner to join by 30.12.2022 as no waitlist exists and other candidates are unavailable.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 15.7.2021 set aside; petitioner allowed to join by 30.12.2022 without consequential relief for past period.

Pushpendra Kumar Nim Vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11389 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Pushpendra Kumar Nim Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gulrez Khan,Javed Husain Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Gulrez Khan learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Neeraj Pandey learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶6

Petitioner seeks cancellation of order dated 15.7.2021 passed by the U.P. State Council of Education, Research and Training Board, U.P. Lucknow whereby petitioner's candidature for appointment on the post of Lecturer (Urdu) at District Education and Training Institution, Bulandshahr, has been cancelled.

¶7

Earlier the petitioner and others were declared successful by the U.P. Public Service Commission vide result published on 12.12.2019. Accordingly, provisional appointments were offered by the U.P. State Council of Education, Research and Training Board vide its communication dated 26.6.2020. All 66 candidates selected by the U.P. Public Service Commission were granted provisional appointments at specified institutions. Present petitioner was granted provisional selection at District Education and Training Institution, Bulandshahr. It is a fact, petitioner has not joined that posting and has now been visited with the impugned order.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit, upon spread of the pandemic COVID-19, being faced with difficult circumstances on the personal front and being concerned about his health, the petitioner remained indecisive. Resultantly, he

¶9

could not join pursuant to the provisional selection dated 26.6.2020.

¶10

However, it has further been asserted, at present the post of Lecturer (Urdu) at District Education and Training Institution, Bulandshahr is lying vacant. There is no other or waitlisted candidate who may be entitled to appointment on that post. Further, no other requisition has been made or is pending with the U.P. Public Service Commission to fill up that post. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for a second chance be given to him to join pursuant to the provisional appointment dated 26.6.2020.

¶11

On such facts, on 30.11.2022 following order was passed:

¶12

"Though no case is made out to quash the impugned communication, alternatively, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted, at present, six posts of Lecturer (Urdu) as were originally advertised are still lying vacant as also there is no wait list candidate or other eligible candidates available for appointment. Therefore, the petitioner requests indulgence to be considered afresh.

¶13

Learned Standing Counsel may obtain clear written instructions as to:

¶14

(i) existing vacancies on the post of Lecturer (Urdu) under Advertisement no.5/2013-14;

¶15

(ii) whether any wait-list was prepared or may be made available;

¶16

(iii) whether any fresh requisition etc has been made with respect to above noted surviving vacancies and;

¶17

(iv) whether there would be any impediment with the respondents to consider grant of one further opportunity to the petitioner and similarly situate persons.

¶18

Put up in the additional cause list on 14 December 2022 in top ten cases."

¶19

Today, upon instructions received, learned Standing Counsel would submit, sufficient time was granted to the petitioner to join on the selected post. Since the petitioner continuously failed to act on the same, respondents were left with no option but to cancel the provisional selection of the petitioner.

¶20

At the same time, on the strength of written instructions received, learned Standing Counsel would further submit,

¶21

neither any other candidate was available with the respondents to be appointed in place of the petitioner nor any waitlist has been prepared nor any other candidate has been offered chance of appointment against the post on which the petitioner was selected. Further, no other requisition or advertisement has been made, till date to fill up the said post. In fact, in all, five posts of Lecturer (Urdu) are lying vacant in similar circumstances. Eight other vacancies have arisen as the candidates who joined on those posts have resigned. Reference has also been made to some other posts on which similar vacancies exist.

¶22

Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, in the first place, it may be recognised, there is no procedural defect in the approach adopted by the respondents. They were enabled in law to seek cancellation of the provisional appointment granted to the petitioner since he failed to join. However, the facts of the present case are peculiar and unique. It cannot be denied that the functioning of all institutions as also the citizens had remained vastly disrupted for almost two years beginning from March 2020 to February 2022. Wide spread disruption was caused by the spread of the pandemic COVID-19 and three waves and multiple variants of the virus suffered by the public at large involving very large number of infections and deaths. The Court therefore, recognises the existence of unique circumstance that had caused disruptions as may have prevented the petitioner from taking a rationale decision at the relevant time, to join the post on which he was provisionally selected.

¶23

Then, it is not as if the petitioner was granted a largesse by the State. He had applied for selection under a competitive examination regime. He had been declared successful at that and therefore, offered appointment. In absence of any other candidate being eligible to such appointment, at present and in

¶24

absence of any waitlist having been prepared by the respondents to fill up such post, it does appear that the petitioner may be granted one opportunity to atone his mistake.

¶25

The fact that the respondents have yet not issued requisition and no advertisement has been published to fill up that post, the interest of the society at large may be best served if the petitioner is allowed an opportunity as prayed. Public examination and public selection procedure consume both public time and money. Society waits till valid selections are made for the functionaries to arise who may discharge the necessary obligations owed to the society.

¶26

Looked in that light, in the peculiar facts of the present case and not by way of law that may bind the respondent State, the impugned order dated 15.7.2021 is set aside. It is provided, subject to the petitioner offering joining at at District Education and Training Institution, Bulandshahr on or before 30.12.2022, petitioner may be allowed to join on that post with no other consequential relief for the past period. Thus, his seniority would be counted from the date of his joining and all consequential relief may arise accordingly. It is also left open to the respondents to apply this procedure to other vacancies existing except those where selected candidates had earlier joined but later resigned.

¶27

With the above observations, present petition stands allowed .

¶28

Order Date :- 14.12.2022 Faraz

¶29

Digitally signed by FARAZ AHMAD Date: 2022.12.16 13:51:33 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pushpendra Kumar Nim v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpendra Kumar Nim v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Santosh Kumar Mishra Vs the State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ramesh Chandra Vishwakarma and 8 Others Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Deep Chand Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rampyari @ Budhrani Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kaushal Kumar Singh Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Sukhveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others