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

2020 Supreme(All) 380

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Biswanath Somadder, Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, JJ.
State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Chikitsa Shiksha Evam Parshikshan, Government of U.P., Lucknow and others - Appellants
Versus
Dr. Raj Kamal Singh s/o Raj Nath Singh, r/o Flat No.4/27, 1st Floor, Doctors Colony, Medical College Campus, Jhansi - Respondent
Special Appeal No. 253 of 2020
Decided On : 21-04-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Manish Goyal (Additional Advocate General), Ashok Kumar Goyal (Additional Chief Standing Counsel)
For the Respondent: Virendra Singh, A.B. Maurya

Point of Law:
Grant of pay protection, in a particular case, would depend on the prevalent policy, which may be based upon consideration of a variety of factors as also the recommendations made by expert bodies with little scope of interference in exercise of powers of judicial review.

Headnote:

Service Law – Appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order whereby the writ petition has been allowed and the order dated 05.04.2019 passed by the State Government which was impugned therein has been quashed – Held, appointment of the petitioner having been made pursuant to selection based on direct recruitment in an open competition on the recommendation made by the Commission consequent to an advertisement, he would not be entitled to pay protection as per terms of the policy of the State Government under the government order - judgment passed by the learned Single Judge has proceeded on a wrong factual premise, and, therefore, cannot be sustained

Facts of the Case:

Subject matter of the controversy pertains to appointment against a post of Lecturer in a State Medical College in Uttar Pradesh, which is governed by the Uttar Pradesh State Medical Colleges Teachers Services Rules, 19991, as amended from time to time the Service Rules, the appointing authority is the Governor of the State.

Finding of the court:

Appointment of the petitioner having been made pursuant to selection based on direct recruitment in an open competition on the recommendation made by the Commission consequent to an advertisement, he would not be entitled to pay protection as per terms of the policy of the State Government under the government order - judgment passed by the learned Single Judge has proceeded on a wrong factual premise, and, therefore, cannot be sustained

Result: Special Appeal allowed

JUDGMENT :

Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. The present intra court appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 18.07.2019 passed by a learned Single Judge in WritA No. 10674 of 2019 (Dr. Raj Kamal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others), whereby the writ petition has been allowed and the order dated 05.04.2019 passed by the State Government which was impugned therein has been quashed.

2. The authorities of the State Government who were the respondents in the writ petition are the appellants before us.

3. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erroneously proceeded on a presumption that the writ petitioner had been appointed by the State Government on 26.08.2015 i.e. prior to 24.09.2015 when the relevant government order was issued clarifying that the benefit of an earlier government order dated 12.06.1998 with regard to pay protection would not be available to a government servant appointed by open recruitment.

4. It is submitted that the writ petitioner in fact submitted his joining pursuant to a subsequent appointment order dated 20.09.2016, which is after issuance of the government order dated 24.09.2015, and in view thereof the judgment of the learned Single Judge having been rendered on an incorrect factual premise, cannot be legally sustained.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent writ petitioner has tried to support the judgment of the learned Single Judge by submitting that though the petitioner had joined the post of Lecturer at the State Medical College, Jhansi, pursuant to the appointment order dated 20.09.2016, he had initially been granted appointment in terms of an appointment order dated 26.08.2015 which was prior in time to the issuance of the government order dated 24.09.2015 and as such the benefit of pay protection could not have been denied to him.

6. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, the relevant facts, as are reflected from the records before us, are required to be noticed.

7. The subject matter of the controversy pertains to appointment against a post of Lecturer in a State Medical College in Uttar Pradesh, which is governed by the Uttar Pradesh State Medical Colleges Teachers Services Rules, 1999 the Service Rules, as amended from time to time. Under the aforesaid Rules, the appointing authority is the Governor of the State.

8. As per Rule 5 of the aforesaid Service Rules, the posts of Lecturers in State Medical Colleges are to be filled up by direct recruitment on the recommendation of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission the Commission. The vacancies existing in the teaching cadre in the State Medical Colleges were notified to the Commission and the same were advertised in terms of an advertisement dated 24.08.2013 inviting online applications for filling up the vacancies by direct recruitment. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the respondent petitioner submitted his application and was selected by the Commission on the basis of an interview. Consequent thereto, the State Government issued an appointment order dated 26.08.2015 where under the petitioner was granted appointment and posting against the post of Lecturer (Tuberculosis and Respiratory Medicine/Pulmonary Medicine) at the Medical College, Azamgarh. The appointment order provided for a specific condition where under the petitioner was required to join the post within a period of one month, failing which the appointment order was to be cancelled and his candidature would cease. It transpires that the petitioner did not join within the stipulated time period, and another appointment order dated 20.09.2016 was issued where under he was appointed/posted at the Medical College, Jhansi, on the same terms and conditions as under the earlier order dated 26.08.2015. Accepting the subsequent appointment order dated 20.09.2016, the petitioner joined the post of Lecturer at the Medical College, Jhansi on 07.10.2016, and raised a claim for pay protect

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top