IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. K. Sen, C. J. and R. K. Agrawal, J.
SADIQ ALI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Special Appeal 150 Of 1998
Decided On : 08/29/2001
Appointment Cancellation - Class IV Employees - Rule 32 of Group D Employees Service Rules, 1985 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Rule 32 of the Group D Employees Service rules, 1985 - The court discussed the appointment cancellation of class IV employees and the applicability of Rule 32 of the Group D Employees Service rules, 1985. The court analyzed the procedure followed in the selection process, the violation of principles of natural justice, and the authority of the State Government to cancel appointments.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-writ petitioners were appointed as class IV employees but their appointments were later cancelled by the State government. The court analyzed the procedure of appointment, the cancellation of appointments, and the arguments presented by both parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the selection process conducted by the Chief Medical Officer was arbitrary and full of favoritism. It concluded that the cancellation of appointments by the State government was justified due to the irregularities in the selection process.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the appointment cancellation, the violation of principles of natural justice, and the authority of the State Government to cancel appointments based on irregularities in the selection process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in cases of mass scale malpractices in the selection process, no notice is required to be given to the affected persons. It also emphasized that the question of violation of principles of natural justice does not arise when the selected candidates do not possess the prerequisite qualifications prescribed by the statutory rules.
Final Decision: The special appeals were dismissed, and the parties were ordered to bear their own costs.
( 1 ) THESE two special appeals have been filed by the appellant-writ petitioners against a common judgment and order dated 22. 1. 1998 passed by the learned single Judge whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants-writ petitioners have been dismissed.
( 2 ) WE have heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri P. N. Ojha on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioners in both the special appeals and Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated facts giving rise to the present special appeals are that the appellant-writ petitioners joined as class IV employees on different class IV posts, such as ward boys, sweeper-cum-chaukidars and chaukidar-cum-sweepers at the places of their posting in the month of June, 1996 in pursuance of the different orders of appointment dated 7. 6. 1996 passed by Dr. Yashpal Singh. the then Chief Medical Officer, Padrauna, now Kushinagar. When they were not getting their salary. Sadiq Ali and 7 others filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34448 of 1996 seeking writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with the performance of their duties on the posts on which they have been appointed, and the respondents be directed to pay regular monthly salaries to them along with arrears. During the pendency of the writ petition, their appointments were cancelled vide order dated 27. 3. 1997 passed by the State government as communicated by orders dated 9/10. 4. 1997 by the Chief Medical Officer, padrauna. A notice was also published in Dainik Jagran on 13. 4. 1997 to the effect that the services of all the class IV employees who were appointed in pursuance of the appointment letters, signed and issued by Dr. Yashpal Singh, the then Chief Medical Officer, shall stand cancelled. Ram Pratap Singh and 8 others filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15657 of 1997, challenging the order of cancellation of their appointments. In the earlier writ petition also, the cancellation of the appointment of the writ petitioners-therein, had been challenged.
( 4 ) AN order was issued by the State Government on 20. 9. 1995 for filling up the then existing class IV vacancies in the Medical Health Department of the State. It was contemplated and directed that in making such appointments, policy of reservation in favour of Scheduled caste/scheduled Tribes and other backward classes shall be kept in view, This Government order was addressed to the Director General, Medical Health and a copy thereof was endorsed to all the Chief Medical Officers in Uttar Pradesh. In pursuance of the aforesaid Government Order, the Chief Medical Officer, Padrauna initiated proceedings for recruiting the candidates for class iv posts in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940. The vacancies in class IV cadre comprised of the posts of ward boys, sweepers and chaukidars. An advertisement inviting the applications was published in the local newspaper siddha Bhumi on 29. 10. 1995. Applications were invited by 4. 11. 1995. Interviews were held in the month of January, 1996 by a selection committee constituted for the purpose and on 9. 7. 1996 appointment letters were issued to the successful candidates. In respect of one of the candidates, appointment letter was issued on 15. 6. 1996. All the selected candidates, who were 80 in number (37 chaukidar-cum-sweepers and 43 others class iv employees) joined in the month of June, 1996 itself. The grievance of the petitioners is that inspite of the fact that they have been duly selected after completing all the requisite formalities and have been continuously working from the date of their joining, their salary was not released and that subsequently, their services were terminated abruptly in pursuance of the Government order dated 27. 3. 1997 passed by the State Government.
( 5 ) SHRI Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel submitted that all the appellants-writ petitioners were appointed after following due procedure of law and had
REFERRED TO : Basudeo Tiwary v. Sido Kanhu University and Ors.
Biswa Ranjan Sahoo and Ors. v. Sushanta Kumar Dinda and Ors.
Hanuman Prasad and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr.
Krishna Yadav and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.