Back
2017 Supreme(All) 2863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V.K. SHUKLA, ASHOK KUMAR, JJ.
RAJENDRA SINGH - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF U.P. - Respondent
Special Appeal No. 516 of 2015
Decided On : 24-03-2017
For the Appellant :Siddharth Khare and Ashok Khare, Advocates.
For the Respondent:C.S.C., Nripendra Chaturvedi, Nripendra Chaudhary, Advocates.
The importance of fairness and transparency in the appointment process, and the consequences of engagement without following due procedure of law.
Headnote:
Appointment - Violation of Statutory Rules - U.P. Panchayat Sewak Service Rules 1978, U.P. Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointments (on posts etc. provisions of Public Service Commission) Rules 1979 - The court discussed the violation of statutory rules in the appointment of the petitioner-appellants and the applicability of the U.P. Panchayat Sewak Service Rules 1978 and U.P. Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointments (on posts etc. provisions of Public Service Commission) Rules 1979. The court emphasized the importance of fairness and transparency in the appointment process and highlighted the consequences of engagement without following due procedure of law. The court also referred to the judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi 2006 (4) SCC 1 to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-appellants challenged the validity of their disengagement from service, claiming that their appointment was made as per exigencies of service and should have been regularized under the U.P. Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointments (on posts etc. provisions of Public Service Commission) Rules 1979.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment of the petitioner-appellants was made in violation of statutory rules and their engagement was a temporary/stop gap arrangement, which could be terminated at any point of time without prior notice. The court upheld the disengagement of the petitioner-appellants as per the terms and conditions of their appointment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the petitioner-appellants' appointment, the applicability of statutory rules, and the consequences of engagement without following due procedure of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of fairness and transparency in the appointment process, and highlighted the consequences of engagement without following due procedure of law. The court also referred to the judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi 2006 (4) SCC 1 to support its decision.
Final Decision: The Special Appeal was dismissed, and no relief or reprieve was granted to the petitioner-appellants.
1. Rajendra Singh and Pramod Kumar are assailing before us the validity of the order dated 21.02.2011 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.18192 of 1992 (Rajendra Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others) wherein the Learned Single Judge has proceeded to non-suit the claim of the petitioner-appellants by holding that appointment of petitioner-appellant has been made in violation of statutory rules and accordingly, no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Brief background of the case is that petitioner-appellants' claim to have been appointed as Gram Panchayat Adhikari vide appointment letters dated 16.03.1990 and claim to have joined on the respective post w.e.f. 16.05.1990 and 26.05.1990, respectively. The appointment letter of petitioner-appellant no.1 dated 16.05.1990 provides for as follows :-
vkns'k
Jh jktsUnz flag vkRet dh fuEu& jke fuoklh eykiqj i=ky;&vkehj] tuin&fQjkstkckn dks xzke iapk;r vf/kdkjh ds in ij osru dze 950&20&1150& n0jkW&25&1500 rFkk 'kklu }kjk fu/kkZfjr eagxkbZ HkRrk vkfn tks Hkh ns; gksa] fodkl [k.M gkFkoUr [kjx<+] tuin fQjkstkckn esa dk;ZHkkj x`g.k djus ds fnukad ls fuEu izfrcU/kksa ds lkFk vLFkk;h LFkkukiUu :i ls fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gSA
1- Jh flag dh lsok;s 2 o"kZ ds fy, ;fn iwoZ lekIr u gks tk, rks ijh{k.k vof/k ij ekuh tk;sxhA
2- budh lsok;sa fdlh Hkh le; fcuk iwoZ lwpuk ds lekIr dh tk ldrh gSA
3- :0 150-00 udn tekur tek djds ikl cqd ftyk iapk;r jkt vf/kdkjh] fQjkstkckn ds in uke ls cfU/kr djkuh gksxh rFkk 2&, QkeZ Hkjuk gksxkA
4- l{ke fpfdRlkf/kdkjh ls LokLF; izek.k i= izLrqr djuk gksxkA
5- ;fn fookfgr gks rks ,d gh iRuh dk ?kks"k.kki=A
/keZ flag xkSre
ftyk jkt vf/kdkjh
fQjkstkcknA
dk;kZy; ftyk iapk;r jkt vf/kdkjh fQjkstkckn i=kad 134@iapk;r&90&91 fnukad ebZ 16] 90
izfrfyfi %& Jh jktsUnz flag vkjRet Jh fuEcjke] fuoklh eykiqj] iks0 vk/khj] tuin fQjkstkckn dks bl vk'k; ls fd og viuh ;ksxnku vk[;k m0f0v0 lk/kZoUr [ksjx<+ tuin fQjkstkckn dks viuh ;ksxnku vk[;k izLrqr djsa rFkk lHkh vko';d izek.k i= Hkh izLrqr djsaA
2- [k.M fodkl vf/kdkjh gkFkoUr [ksjx<+ tuin fQjkstkckn dks bl vk'k; ls fd& fu;qDr Hkwfe iapk;r vf/kdkjh ls 150@& dh udn tekur tek dj tekur ikl cqd ftyk iapk;r jkt vf/kdkjh fQjkstkckn ds uke ls cfU/kr djk dj 2&, QkeZ er'kadj LokLF; izek.ki= izkIr dj HkstsaA blds i'pkr~ bUgsa 15 fnu fdlh xzke iapk;r vf/kdkjh ds lkFk lEc) dj izf'k{k.k fnykus dh O;oLFkk djsaA mlds }kjk izf'k{k.k dk izek.ki= izkIr djds gh U;k; iapk;r {ks= dks LorU= Hkkj fnykdj lwfpr djsaA
3- LFkkiuk fyfidA
4- O;fDrxr i=koyh gsrqA
ftyk & iapk;r jkt vf/kdkjh
fQjkstkcknA
3. The appointment letter of petitioner no.2 provides for as follows :-
dk;kZy; vkns'k
Jh izeksn dqekj vkRet Jh 'kkUrh Lo:i] fuoklh ckebZ] i=ky; HkkjkSy] tuin fQjkstkckn dks xzke iapk;r vf/kdkjh ds in ij osrudze la0 950&20&1150&n0jkW0&25&1500 rFkk 'kklu }kjk fu/kkZfjr eagxkbZ HkRrk vkfn tks Hkh ns; gks fodkl [k.M ekj[kh tuin fQjkstkckn esa dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus ds fnukad ls fuEu izfrcU/kksa ds lkFk vLFkk;h rnFkZ :i esa fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gSA
1- Jh izeksn dqekj dh lsok;sa 2 o"kZ ds fy, ;fn iwoZ lekIr u gks tk;s rks ijh{k.k vof/k ij ekuh tk;sxha
2- mudh lsok;sa fdlh Hkh le; fcuk fdlh iwoZ lwpuk ds lekIr dh tk ldrh gSA
3- :0 150-00 udn tekur tek djds iklcqd ftyk iapk;r jkt vf/kdkjh fQjkstkckn ds in uke ls cfU/kr&djkuh gksxh rFkk 2&, QkeZ Hkjuk gksxkA
4- eq[; fpfdRlkf/kdkjh ls LokLF; izek.k i= izkIr dj izLrqr djuk gksxkA
5- ;fn fookfgr gks rks ,d gh iRuh dk ?kks"k.kk i= izLrqr djuk gksxkA
6- nks jktif=r vf/kdkfj;ksa ls pfj= izek.k i= izkIr dj izLrr djuk gksxkA
/keZ flag xkSre
ftyk iapk;r& vf/kdkjh
fQjkstkckn
dk;kZy; ftyk iapk;r jkt vf/kdkjh fQjkstkckn
i=kad 135@iapk0@LFkk0&xzk0ia0v0@90&91 fnukad ebZ] 16] 1990
izfrfyfi 1%& Jh izeksn dqekj vkRet Jh 'kkUrh Lo:i] fuoklh ckebZ] iksLV&HkkjkSy ftyk fQjkstkckn dks bl vk'k; ls fd og viuh ;ksxnku vk[;k [k.M fodkl vf/kdkjh ukj[kh&fQjkstkckn dks lHkh vko';d vfHkys[k@izek.k i=ksa lfgr izLrqr djsaA
2- [k.M fodkl vf/kdkjh ukj[kh&fQjkstkckn dks bl vk'k; ls fd og uofu;qfDr xzke iapk;r vf/kdkjh ls 150-00 dh ud
