Back
2021 Supreme(All) 489
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Abdul Moin, J.
Pramod Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Madhyamik Education & Ors. – Respondents
Service Single No. 15271 of 2019
Decided On : 02-08-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Umesh Chandra Pandey
Point of Law : if any mistake committed by the department in making pay fixation of an employee is rectified after the retirement of an employee withdrawing the benefit which have been paid to such employee much prior to the retirement of an employee, such mistake may not be rectified, consequently no amount in the name of excess amount shall be recovered from the employee nor the pension of such employee could be reduced.
Headnote:
Service - Mandamus-A judicial writ issued as a command to an inferior court or ordering a person to perform a public or statutory duty-Prayer for quashing order - claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order-Three judgments of this Court passed in the case of the petitioner attained finality.
Finding of the Court : in cases where an authority does not take a decision on relevant considerations or totally misdirects itself and the objective material on the basis of which such decision is to be taken is before the Court, then the Court, in certain exceptional circumstances, can itself take that decision instead of remanding the matter to the authority, particularly when such remand would entail further delay and hardship - When the Court should impose cost to check the frivolous writ petition and the orders which are cause of explosion of dockets of the Court
Result : Petition allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. Present petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 26.04.2019 passed by opposite party no.1, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, by which the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Subject Specialist has been rejected. A further prayer is for a mandamus commanding the respondents to issue appropriate order of appointment treating the appointment of the petitioner to be a notional appointment and pay salary in terms of order passed in case of Awadhesh Kumar.
3. The case set forth by the petitioner is that in pursuance to an advertisement dated 12.12.1999 for the post of Subject Specialist, a selection had been held in which the petitioner also qualified along with one Awadhesh Kumar. The petitioner claims to have submitted his joining as a Subject Specialist at R.R. Inter College, Sandila, District Hardoi. Subsequently, the selection was stayed by the order of the respondents dated 12.10.2000.
4. In the meanwhile, a selected person namely Awadhesh Kumar filed writ petition at Allahabad bearing Writ A No.10448 of 2001 in re: Awadhesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others, and this Court vide order dated 09.03.2010, a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition, after considering that there were certain irregularities in the selection by which ineligible persons had been permitted to participate in the selection, was of the view that mass cancellation of the selection held in pursuance to the advertisement dated 12.12.1999 is legally unsustainable and accordingly required the State Government to constitute a Scrutiny Committee in respect of the selection in question for segregating the good part from bad part after examining the records of each of the selected candidate separately.
5. The petitioner also filed Writ Petition No.7474 (SS) of 2000 before this Court which remained pending. The same was decided vide order dated 26.03.2012 requiring the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner in light of the judgment of Awadhesh Kumar (supra). The said representation was decided vide order dated 11.01.2013, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition, whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1369 (SS) of 2013. The said petition was disposed of requiring the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner vide order dated 07.07.2015, a copy of which is Annexure-7 to the writ petition. Again the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 10.09.2015, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition.
6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a third writ petition namely Writ Petition No.6217 (SS) of 2015 and the same was allowed vide judgment and order dated 10.11.2016, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, in terms of the decision of this Court in the case of Varunesh Chandra Shukla vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Writ Petition No.6216 of 2015. The judgment of Varunesh Chandra Shukla (supra) is Annexure RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner. The writ Court in the case of Varunesh Chandra Shukla (supra) required the matter to be considered by the State Government in light of the direction issued in the case of Awadhesh Kumar (supra).
7. Incidentally, all the three judgments of this Court passed in the case of the petitioner attained finality.
8. Again the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 22.01.2018, which lead to a fourth round of litigation by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No.6001 of 2018. The writ petition has been allowed vide judgment and order dated 25.09.2018, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, whereby the respondents were required to consider the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher (Subject Specialist).
9. The claim of t
