Disposed

Anant Agarwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy Dep. Irrigation and Water Resources and 4 Others

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2024WRIA/4118/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court heard a writ challenge regarding the transfer of a petitioner from Irrigation to Ground Water Department due to reservation adjustments. The court sought instructions before concluding.

What did the court decide?

Status quo regarding the petitioner's department maintained till further hearing.

What the court decided

Anant Agarwal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4118 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Anant Agarwal

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy Dep. Irrigation And Water Resources And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Mehrotra,Harsh Vardhan Mehrotra,Ritika Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Raj Kumar Upadhyaya (R.K.Upadhyaya)

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

1. Heard.

¶7

2. Under challenge is the order dated 22.03.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby department of the petitioner has been changed from Irrigation Department to Ground Water Department. Also under challenge is the order dated 29.11.2023, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition, so far as it pertains to change of department of the candidates.

¶8

The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 16.10.2023, a copy of which is Annexure-3 to the petition, to the extent that it directs for change of department.

¶9

3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that selection for the post of Assistant Engineer in different departments had taken place. On account of non extension of the benefit of reservation to the women candidates, who did not belong to the State of U.P. in terms of the Government Order dated 09.01.2007, the said Government Order had been challenged by various persons to the extent it ousted the reservation to the women candidates, who were not the domicile of the State of Uttar Pradesh.

¶10

4. The writ Court in a bunch of writ petitions leading being Writ A No.11039 of 2018 in re : Vipin Kumar Maurya & 4 Ors vs State of U.P. & Ors vide judgment and order dated 16.01.2019, a copy of which is Annexure-10 to the writ petition, held the said Government order to be ultra vires . It was further directed that the result be declared after considering the women reservation. It was further provided that those candidates who have been selected and appointed

¶11

pursuant to the advertisement in question, it would be unjust to allow the respondents to eliminate their candidature and consequently it was provided that none of the selected petitioners would be removed from service on account of publication of revised select list and their appointments would stand protected. It was also provided that the petitioners shall be adjusted against available vacant positions which have not been advertised so far or on which any right has not yet accrued in favour of any person.

¶12

5. Subsequent thereto a Writ Petition No.30826 of 2019: In re Anjali Shukla vs State of U.P. was filed before this Court wherein again after considering the judgment of this Court in the case of Vipin Kumar Maurya (supra) and the fact that the said judgment has not been stayed in the Special Appeal filed by the Commission namely Special Appeal (Defective) No.475 of 2019, the respondents were directed to prepare a fresh select list with regard to selected women candidates as per the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 16.01.2019.

¶13

6. In pursuance thereof, the Commission is said to have sent two recommendations dated 16.10.2023 and 29.11.2023, copies of which are Annexure-3 and 2 to the petition, for the adjustment of the candidates on supernumerary posts who were to be ousted after adjustment of the women candidates.

¶14

7. The said recommendations appear to have found favour with the State Government by the Department of Appointment and Pernonnel which has issued an order dated 31.10.2023, copy of which is Annexure 8 to the petition, for the purpose of adjustment of the excess candidates against supernumerary posts.

¶15

8. It is contended that various candidates have been adjusted against the supernumerary posts in the departments in which they had been appointed initially.

¶16

9. Now, by means of the order impugned, the Department of the petitioner has been changed from Irrigation Department to Ground

¶17

Water Department.

¶18

10. Placing reliance on the recommendations of the Commission as above as well as the order of the State Government dated 31.10.2023, the contention is that once sufficient number of vacancies are available in the Irrigation Department consequently, there cannot be any occasion for the adjustment of the petitioner which has been occasioned by means of the order impugned dated 22.03.2024.

¶19

11. Sri Dwijendra Mishra has filed an application for impleadment of Ms Yashodhara Bisht by contending that any order passed in this petition will adversely affect her as she has been adjusted in the Public Works Department in view of reshuffling on account of the reservation. A specific averment has also been made in para 54 of the petition. Considering the same, Sri Dwijendra Mishra is permitted to argue the matter as an intervenor.

¶20

12. Sri R.K. Upadhyaya learned counsel appearing for the Commission as well the learned Standing counsel will seek instructions that once recommendations of the Commission, as indicated above, for adjustment of the excess candidates in the same departments on supernumerary posts has found favour with the State Government as emerges from order dated 31.10.2023 as to why the petitioner has been allotted Ground Water Department from Irrigation Department. Let the instructions be obtained within 2 weeks.

¶21

13. List thereafter as fresh.

¶22

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in pursuance to the order dated 22.03.2024 the petitioner has not been relieved from the Irrigation Department.

¶23

15. Considering the aforesaid, it is provided that status quo as of today, shall to be maintained with regard to the petitioner till the next date of listing.

¶24

Order Date :- 24.5.2024 prateek

¶25

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anant Agarwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy Dep. Irrigation and Water Resources and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Anant Agarwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy Dep. Irrigation and Water Resources 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chhituram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Satish Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Vaishno Das Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. (Home), Govt. of U.P. Lucknow

Akhilesh Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept. Lko.

Rakesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Surendra Chauhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and Others