SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(All) 260

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A. K. Yog, J.
SANTOSH KUMAR SONKAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 17009 Of 1998
Decided On : 03/17/2001

Advocates Appeared:
A.C.TIWARI, V.K.SHUKLA

The petitioners had no enforceable right of regularisation/absorption based on their stopgap employment.

Headnote:

Mandamus - Appointment of Lower Division Clerk - Writ Petition No. 1505 of 1992, Rajesh Kumar and others v. State of U. P. and others - Government Order dated December 14, 1990 - Advertisement dated August 10, 1998

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus for appointment as Lower Division Clerks and to submit a report on filling vacancies among daily wage employees. The Supreme Court had previously ruled that the petitioners had no enforceable right of regularisation/absorption based on their stopgap employment.

Finding of the Court:

The court found no arbitrary action by the Parishad and dismissed the petition, stating that there was no foundation to challenge the Parishad's actions.

Issues: Claim for appointment as Lower Division Clerks, compliance with Supreme Court direction, and alleged violation of court orders in filling vacancies.

Ratio Decidendi: The petitioners had no enforceable right of regularisation/absorption based on their stopgap employment. The court found no arbitrary action by the Parishad and dismissed the petition.

Final Decision: The petition lacked merit and was dismissed with no order as to costs.

A. K. YOG, J.

( 1 ) SANTOSH Kumar Sonkar. Sidhnath Pal and Raj Kishore Singh (petitioners) have filed this petition claiming a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue the letter of appointment after initiating process of selection forthwith on the post of Lower Division Clerk and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to submit a fresh report before this Honble Court in the matter of sanctioned vacancy of 160 post and its mode of filling up amongst daily wages employees by adjusting them in Scheduled Castes/scheduled Tribes as well as Backwards Class quota including in general quota.

( 2 ) AT the outset, it may be stated that the second relief has lost its efficacy. Contesting respondents have filed counter-affidavit and three supplementary counter-affidavits (the original of IIIrd supplementary counter-affidavit is not on record but the typed copy of it has been supplied by learned counsel for the respondents and it shall be retained on record.

( 3 ) THE facts in brief are that petitioners were engaged on daily wages during 1986 due to the exigency of workload by U. P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad (for short called the parishad) for getting certificates prepared. The appointment of the petitioner was primarily by way of stop arrangement in order to clear the backlog. These persons were discontinued in the year 1987.

( 4 ) PETITIONERS filed Writ Petition No. 1505 of 1992, which was allowed on 22. 4. 1992 in terms of judgment and order in connected Writ Petition Nos. 4953of 1989, 11144 of 1988 and 26515 of 1990 (writ paragraphs 4 and 5 of the petition ). The Parishad filed special leave petition against aforementioned judgment and order and the said special leave petition was decided by Supreme court vide judgment and order dated August 19. 1992 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition ). Perusal of Supreme Court order shows that Apex Court did not find favour with the judgment of the high Court passed in favour of the petitioners and disposed of appeals on the concession of the parishad vide paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Supreme Court judgment. The said paragraphs read :

"6. The appellant.--Parishad has offered to consider the cases of these 27 respondents who were writ petitioners before the High Court, for purposes of recruitment to the post of Lower Division clerks as and when vacancies arise and steps for filling up of those posts are taken up by appellant. The appellant submits that if the respondents made appropriate applications at the appropriate time of filling up of the vacancies and if they possess the requisite minimum qualifications for the posts and if they were not beyond the prescribed maximum age limit as on the date of which utilisation of their services commenced in the year 1986. their cases would be duly considered, affording to them preference in the recruitment, other conditions being equal subject to the reservations policy. Appellant also requires registration of the respondents with the employment exchanges. For purpose of age limit, their respective age as at the time of commencement of their earlier casual employment would be reckoned.

7. This concession is placed on record and the orders of the High Court under appeal are set aside. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs. "

( 5 ) FROM the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court, it is absolutely clear that petitioners had no vested statutorily enforceable right of regularisation/absorption on the basis of their working on stopgap basis. The only right, which the persons like the petitioners can claim on parity, is the direction of the Supreme Court in its above order.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, however, drew notice of this Court to the Government order dated December 14, 1990 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition ). The said Government Order cannot be challenged or relied upon at this stage by the petitioners to carry their right beyond what is contemplated in the above quoted order of the Supreme Court. In case, the said g















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top