Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
Rajan Roy, J.
Shailendra Kumar Tandon – Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. Thorugh The Secy. Dept.Of Medical And Health – Respondents
WRIT - A No. - 4625 of 2011
Decided On : 13-01-2023
Appointment - Challenge to appointment under U.P. Pharmacy Council Rules - Pharmacy Act, 1948, Rule 70, 46, 5, 70 - The court discussed the appointment of the petitioner as a Junior Assistant and Senior Assistant under the U.P. Pharmacy Council Rules and the Pharmacy Act, 1948. The court highlighted the provisions of Rule 70, which governs the appointment of staff by the Registrar, and the requirements for regular appointment against a sanctioned post. The court also emphasized the need for proper procedure and fair selection in case of permanent vacancies, as per Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged orders related to his appointment as Junior Assistant and Senior Assistant in the U.P. Pharmacy Council. The court found discrepancies in the appointment letters and noted that the petitioner's services were never regularized. The court also highlighted the interim orders and judgments related to the appointment issue.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was never regularly appointed and that the documents relied upon by him were possibly forged and fabricated. The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the lack of regular appointment and the absence of proper procedure and fair selection.
Issues: The issues revolved around the regular appointment of the petitioner, the validity of appointment letters, and compliance with the rules and procedures for appointment against sanctioned posts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for regular appointment against sanctioned posts and proper procedure for filling permanent vacancies, as per the Constitution of India. The court also highlighted the lack of evidence for the petitioner's regular appointment and the possible fabrication of documents.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the court found no grounds for interference in favor of the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has inter alia challenged an order dated 01.09.2008 passed by opposite party no.4 i.e. the then Registrar, U.P. Pharmacy Council and another order dated 14.11.2018 passed by opposite party no.3-the President of the U.P. Pharmacy Council. Inquiry Report dated 27.09.2018 containing findings of a Committee constituted by the State Government in pursuance to orders passed by this Court in these proceedings to ascertain the veracity of the appointment of the petitioner as claimed has also been challenged by way of an amendment to the writ petition.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that according to the petitioner he was engaged vide order dated 12.04.1982 as Junior Assistant for three months on temporary basis w.e.f. 12.04.1982 by an order of the same date. The said appointment was extended from time to time vide orders dated 11.07.1982, 08.10.1982, 07.01.1983. Ultimately, the Registrar who is the appointing authority of the said post in view of Rule 70 of U.P. Pradesh Pharmacy Rules made by the State Government under the Pharmacy Act, 1948, wrote to the President regarding arrangement for regular appointment of the petitioner or any other employee in place of Sri Yashkaran Singh whose work was not satisfactory. On this, as claimed by the petitioner, a noting was made by the President of the Council that considering report of the Registrar and the work of the petitioner, his tenure is extended but he also made the observation that regular appointment can only be made against a sanctioned post, therefore, the matter is referred to the Council. He further made the note that work should be taken from the petitioner regularly till further arrangement is made. Based on Annexure-4, the petitioner claims that the matter was placed in a meeting of the Council dated 28.07.1983. However, the said document contained in Annexure no.4 has been denied by the concerned opposite parties as it is not available in their records and it is alleged that the same is forged. The Court finds that at page no.29, the covering letter (annexed with the alleged resolution dated 28.07.1983) signed by the then Registrar-Sri S.K. Pathak does not bear the name of the addressee nor any dispatch number or date.
4. Vide Annexure-5 dated 24.01.1984, the petitioner claims to have been appointed/ promoted as Senior Assistant against the permanent post occupied by Smt. Usha Rani Banerji who had expired. The said letter contained in Annexure no.5 and as referred in para no.9 of the writ petition has been denied by the Pharmacy Council vide para 35 of its counter affidavit. It has been stated that the said order dated 24.01.1984 is forged and fabricated for the reason that there is no office stamp of the Registrar but in the letter it has been mentioned as Camp Letter Number. It has also been stated that since the petitioner’s services were never regularized on the post of Junior Assistant, promotion/ appointment on the post of Senior Assistant does not arise as has been mentioned in the said order/ letter. Moreover, vide order dated 31.10.1983 passed in Writ Petition No.5744 (S/S) of 1983 [Pratap Narayan Mahendra vs. State of U.P. & Ors.], the High Court had been pleased to pass an interim order on 31.10.1983 to the effect – ‘In the meantime, no fresh appointment of staff shall be made by the opposite parties and they will also not incur any new expenditure beyond the routine expenditure on establishment i.e. on disbursement of salary of staff’ and on 24.01.1984, the said interim order dated 31.10.1983 was in operation, therefore, the said letter/ order was in violation of the interim order of this Court and it is apparently forged and fabricated. The said letter/ order was not filed along with Writ Petition No.3757 of 1991 filed by the petitioner which clearly indicates that the said letter dated 24.01.1984 is post-dated document which has been prepared to prove his alleged regular appointment. It has als
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for regular appointment against sanctioned posts and the need for proper procedure and fair selection in conformity with the Consti....
An employee's salary cannot be withheld without proper departmental proceedings, and irregular appointments can be regularized through continued service and promotions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher was made against a substantive vacancy, entitling the petitioner to regularization u....
An appointment secured through fraudulent means, such as a forged educational certificate, is void ab initio, and the individual is not entitled to any employment benefits or protections under the la....
An appointment obtained through fraudulent means is null and void, and no departmental inquiry is required to terminate such service.
The obligation to hold an enquiry before imposition of major punishment and the principles of natural justice must be adhered to in cases of termination of service.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the void ab-initio nature of the appointment based on forged and fabricated documents, leading to the termination of the petitioner's services.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
