Dismissed¶18

Union of India and 3 Others v. Neeraj Prakash and Another

Allahabad HC18 Mar 2025WRIA/3328/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GDS appointment; Employment Exchange registration; casual labour engaged 1992; Rule 33(4) GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules 2011; candidature rejection ground not communicated despite representation; reliance on document filed with rejoinder affidavit; notification dated 30.10.2017 quashed by Tribunal; O.A. No.1436 of 2017 allowed; writ petition dismissed with two months' time to comply; Allahabad High Court WRIT - A No. 3328 of 2025; Arun Bhansali CJ; Kshitij Shailendra J; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:113044-DB; decided 14.7.2025.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioners; they were granted two months' time from the date of the order to comply with the directions given by the Tribunal. ¶18

Union of India and 3 Others vs Neeraj Prakash and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioners; they were granted two months' time from the date of the order to comply with the directions given by the Tribunal.

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners were justified in rejecting the respondent's candidature for the post of GDS on the ground that he was not registered with / sponsored by the Employment Exchange. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

Once it is established that the respondent was registered with the Employment Exchange and has continued to work with the petitioners since his engagement in 1992, denial of his consideration for the GDS post on the purported ground of non-registration with the Employment Exchange cannot be countenanced.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The submission that the Employment Exchange receipt was produced only with the rejoinder has no substance, because despite the respondent's representation the rejection ground was never communicated to him; had it been made known, the receipt would have been annexed with the Original Application itself.

¶15

Key takeaways

Once the ground was projected in response to the O.A. and the requisite document was produced by way of rejoinder, the document so produced cannot be ignored.ratio¶16
The ground projected by the petitioners for rejection of the respondent's candidature being baseless, the directions given by the Tribunal cannot be faulted.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Division Bench: Arun Bhansali, CJ and Kshitij Shailendra, J) — Service — Appointment to post of GDS — Respondent, working as casual labour (C.P. Waterman-cum-Farrash) since 01.08.1992, applied pursuant to notification dated 16.05.2017 offering GDS vacancies to eligible casual labours — Candidature rejected on the ground that he was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange and proof of registration was not submitted — Registration receipt showing registration with Employment Exchange, Kanpur on 14.03.1991 produced along with rejoinder before the Tribunal; receipt not denied by petitioners — Rejection ground never communicated to respondent despite representation — Document produced with rejoinder cannot be ignored once the ground is raised in counter — Tribunal's order dated 22.7.2024 in O.A. No.1436 of 2017 (quashing notification dated 30.10.2017 and directing consideration of respondent's claim for GDS appointment) upheld — Writ petition dismissed; two months' time granted to comply with the Tribunal's directions.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113044-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3328 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Union of India and 3 others Respondent :- Neeraj Prakash and another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Om Counsel for Respondent :- Manoj Kumar Upadhyay

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶6

This petition is directed against order dated 22.7.2024 passed in Original Application No.1436 of 2017, whereby the O.A. filed by respondent no.1 (for short 'the respondent') has been allowed. The notification dated 30.10.2017 in respect of one post for the applicant has been quashed and the petitioners have been directed to consider the claim of the respondent for giving appointment as GDS. Further directions have been given to complete this exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

¶7

The O.A. was filed by the respondent with the averments that he was allowed to work as C.P. Waterman-cum-Farrash with effect from 01.08.1992. A notification dated 16.05.2017 was issued by the petitioners to offer GDS vacancies to the eligible casual labours. Since the respondent was working in the department as casual labour, he applied for the same along with all the required documents. Though the respondent fulfilled all the conditions prescribed in the notification, when his result was not declared, he made a representation. However, the petitioners issued another notification dated 30.10.2017 notifying filling up of 5314 vacancies including those notified on 16.05.2017. Being aggrieved, the O.A. was filed.

¶8

Counter affidavit was filed by the petitioners indicating that the respondent was not found suitable in terms of the provisions mentioned in Rule 33 (4) of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011. It was indicated that as the respondent was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange and proof of registration from the Employment Exchange was not submitted with the application form, his candidature was rejected. The respondent filed rejoinder affidavit indicating that at the time of engagement as casual labour, the required receipt of registration from the Employment Exchange was submitted and the contention raised in this regard has no substance.

¶9

The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that from the perusal of the registration receipt filed along with rejoinder issued by the Employment Exchange, Kanpur, it was evident that the respondent was registered with the Employment Exchange, Kanpur on 14.03.1991 and thus the reason for rejection of the claim for appointment on the post of GDS that his name was not registered with the Employment Exchange has no basis. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that since the respondent is working continuously till date since 1992, presumption has been drawn that his name had been sponsored from the Employment Exchange and on that basis, he was engaged as casual labour and, therefore, denial of appointment on the post of GDS was wholly illegal and arbitrary and hence passed the directions as noticed hereinbefore.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that the Tribunal was not justified in allowing the O.A. Submissions have been made that it was pre-requisite for consideration of candidature of the respondent that at the time of his engagement as casual labour, he should have been sponsored by the Employment

¶11

Exchange, which fact was not established and, therefore, the petitioners were justified in rejecting the candidature of the respondent.

¶12

Further submissions have been made that the receipt of the Employment Exchange had been produced by way of rejoinder and, therefore, same could not have been relied on by the Tribunal and, therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶13

Counsel for the respondent supported the order impugned.

¶14

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶15

The receipt of the Employment Exchange produced by the respondent along with rejoinder before the Tribunal has not been denied by the petitioners. Once it is established that the respondent was registered with the Employment Exchange and the fact that ever since his engagement in the year 1992, he has continued to work with the petitioners on contractual basis for over 25 years till 2017, to deny his consideration on the purported ground of his not being registered with the Employment Exchange, cannot be countenanced. The submissions made that receipt of the Employment Exchange was produced along with rejoinder also has no substance inasmuch as despite the representation made by the respondent, the same was never responded to i.e. the respondent was not made aware of the ground for rejection of his candidature. If the same was made known to him, the said receipt would have been annexed along with the Original Application.

¶16

Once, by way of response to the O.A., the ground was projected by way of filing rejoinder, the requisite has been produced, the same cannot be ignored.

¶17

In that view of the matter, as the ground projected by the petitioners for rejection of respondent's candidature is baseless, the directions given by the Tribunal cannot be faulted.

¶18

The petition has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed. However, the petitioners are granted two months' time from the date of this order to comply with the directions given by the Tribunal.

¶19

Order Date :- 14.7.2025 RK

¶20

(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Union of India and 3 Others v. Neeraj Prakash and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and 3 Others v. Neeraj Prakash and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Committee of Management and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Union of India and 3 Others vs Vimal Kumar Yadav and Another

M/S New Manoj Medical Store vs State of U.P and 2 Others

Shri Virendra Singh vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Defence(Army) and 3 Others

Vinod Kumar vs State of Up and 6 Others

Samiah International Builders Ltd. vs Green View - II Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd.