The Writ Court dismissed the petition challenging termination of temporary security guards without approved procedure, holding no enforceable right existed.
Petition dismissed; orders of Proctor, Registrar and Chancellor rejected.
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.
Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4433 of 2010
Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Maurya S/O Mannu Lal Maurya And Anr.
Respondent :- Chancellor Lucknow University Lucknow And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Y.S. Lohit Counsel for Respondent :- S.P. Shukla,Brijesh Kumar Shukla,Rajesh Tewari,Savitra Vardhan Singh
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
Heard Sri Y.S. Lohit, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5.
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the orders dated 01.07.2009 passed by the Proctor of the Lucknow University terminating the services of the petitioners as guards and the order dated 31.07.2009 passed by the Registrar of the Lucknow University stating that the petitioners were not employed as guards by the University and they were guards employed by a private agency namely Chandra Security Agency and they are not entitled to any benefit claiming themselves to be the employees of the University. The petitioners have also challenged an order dated 13.04.2010 passed by the Chancellor rejecting a representing submitted by the petitioners under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case as pleaded in the writ petition are that the petitioner no. 1 was employed as security guard on 04.09.2006 and he was posted at the Vice Chancellor's residence. The Proctor orally asked the petitioner no. 1 not to work any more on 17.11.2016. He submitted a representation to the Vice Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor endorsed on the application that 'He is active guard. Please keep him in duty.', he was again put on duty.
As per the averments made in the writ petition the petitioner no. 2 was employed as a security guard on 11.10.2006, his work was appreciated by the Vice Chancellor and the Proctor had recommended for payment of a consolidated salary of Rs. 3,000/- to the petitioner no. 2. The Proctor of the University had issued certificates stating that the petitioners were working as temporary guards in the University.
On 30.12.2006, the Proctor of the University had written a letter to the Vice Chancellor stating that 14 persons named in the letter, including the petitioners, had been engaged as security guards in the University on temporary basis. They worked till 18.11.2006 but thereafter they had to be removed from service as their salary could not be paid. The Proctor stated that work was being taken from 7 persons including the petitioners w.e.f. 26.11.2006 and it was requested that suitable orders be passed for payment of their salary.
The University has filed a counter affidavit stating that although some persons were engaged as security guards, their engagement was not made after following the prescribed procedure. As the Government had put a ban on making fresh appointments, the Vice Chancellor had written a letter dated 05.02.2007 directing the Chancellor that if there was any need for engagement of security guards, the same may be done through an agency on contract basis. On 07.06.2007, the Registrar of the University wrote a letter to the Proctor stating that the seven guards who had previously been engaged, be paid their wages for the actual days they had worked and immediately they may be disengaged and in future security guards may be engaged only through some security agency.
Sri Y.S. Lohit, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were working on the post of security guards in the University and they are entitled to be reinstated in service giving them all the benefits, including the continuity of service.
For issuing a writ of mandamus, the existence of a legally enforceable right and denial thereof are essential prerequisite conditions. The petitioners claim that they had been appointed as security guards in the University of Lucknow but no orders of appointment have been placed on record. No contract of service is available on record from which the conditions of service of the petitioners may be ascertained. Although in the letter dated 30.12.2006, the Proctor has stated that 14 persons named in the letter had been engaged as security guards, the letter clearly states that their engagement was entirely on a temporary basis.
The learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any provision of law under which the petitioners were engaged and any provision of law under which they are entitled to continue in service.
For proving that they were working in the University, the petitioners have placed reliance on letter dated 30.12.2000
issued by the Proctor of the University which categorically states that their engagement was made entirely on a temporary basis and, therefore, the aforesaid letter also does not support the petitioners' claim for continuance in service, as temporary engagement can be terminated at any time and it does not give the employee a right to claim permanency in his employment.
A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, annexing therewith 'non teaching list' said to have been taken from the website of the Lucknow University. It contains the names of the petitioners and both of them are described as security guards and both are said to have been working on daily wages and the nature of their employment is described as unapproved. Therefore, even as per the aforesaid list, the petitioners are employed on daily wage basis, without any approval, and, therefore, the aforesaid document does not support the petitioners' claim for regular employment.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the petitioners' engagement as security guards on temporary basis, which was made without any approval of the competent authority and without following the procedure prescribed by the relevant rules, does not confer any enforceable right upon them. Therefore, the orders passed by the Proctor, Registrar and Chancellor rejecting the representation of the petitioners, do not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court.
The writ petition filed by the petitioners lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. .
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 7.2.2023 Pradeep/-
Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners engaged as temporary security guards without approved procedure can claim enforceable right for reinstatement.
Whether orders rejecting petitioners' representation under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act were legally sustainable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dinesh Kumar Maurya And Anr.
Chancellor Lucknow University And Ors.
Ramesh Sinha
Subhash Vidyarthi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
