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

2022 Supreme(All) 334

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Rajesh Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
District Basic Education Officer And 3 Others – Respondents
Writ A No. 18646 of 2021
Decided on : 22-03-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Indra Raj Singh, Adarsh Singh
For the Respondent: Durga Singh, Shyam Krishna Gupta

Point of Law: If employee is terminated or contract of service is terminated, Court shall not grant relief of reinstatement, i.e. specific performance of contract of personal service, as it is barred by the provisions of Specific Relief Act, 1963, therefore, the relief as prayed cannot be granted.

Headnote:

Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 23 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 14 - Post of District Coordinator - Order or direction in nature of mandamus - Nature of certiorari quashing impugned order - Petitioner submits that petitioner was initially appointed on post of District Coordinator (Civil) on contractual basis however his services were not extended vide order passed by respondent no.2, i.e District Magistrate Deoria - Aforesaid order was assailed by the petitioner before this Court by means of filing a petition bearing Writ-A which was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order against which Special Appeal as well as review application was also dismissed – Thereafter petitioner was appointed on post of Guest Lecturer in Government Polytechnic Deoria where he worked till he was re-engaged on post of District Coordinator Deoria by an order passed by District Basic Education Officer Deoria - Petitioner on basis of letter after completing requisite formalities joined post of District Coordinator and started performing his duties with sincerity and devotion - if employee is terminated or contract of service is terminated, Court shall not grant relief of reinstatement, i.e. specific performance of contract of personal service, as it is barred by the provisions of Specific Relief Act, 1963, therefore, the relief as prayed cannot be granted. – Para 15,16.

Finding of the Court;

When a matter is governed by status employee has no vested contractual rights in regard to terms of service but where employment is purely in realm of a simple contract of employment it is strictly governed by terms and conditions of employment settled between the parties - To remind difference between status and contractual appointment court may take up case of a Government Servant - Origin of employment in a Government department is contractual - There is an offer and acceptance in every case but once appointed to post or office person appointed Government Servant acquires a status and his rights and obligations are no longer determined by consent of both the parties but same are governed by Statute or statutory rules which may be framed and altered unilaterally by employer Government.

Result: Writ Petition is partly Allowed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shyam Krishna Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Mr. J.S. Bundela, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent no.2 &4 and Mr. Durga Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

2. This writ petition has been filed interalia for the following relief:-

    "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 03.12.2021 passed by the respondent no.1 District Basic Education Officer, Deoria (Annexure no.10 to the writ petition).

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful functioning of the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned order dated 03.12.2021 passed by the respondent no.1, District Basic Education Officer, Deoria (Annexure no.10 to the writ petition)."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of District Coordinator (Civil) on contractual basis, however, his services were not extended vide order dated 30.07.2009 passed by respondent no.2, i.e. District Magistrate, Deoria. The aforesaid order dated 30.07.2009 was assailed by the petitioner before this Court by means of filing a petition bearing Writ-A No.41726 of 2009 (Rajesh Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and another), which was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.12.2009 against which Special Appeal as well as review application was also dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Guest Lecturer in Government Polytechnic, Deoria, where he worked till he was re-engaged on the post of District Coordinator (Civil), Deoria by an order dated 16.04.2015 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Deoria (respondent no.1). The petitioner, on the basis of letter dated 16.04.2015, after completing the requisite formalities, joined the post of District Coordinator (Civil) on 16.04.2015 and started performing his duties with sincerity and devotion.

4. He further submits that the respondent no.1 issued a charge sheet dated 26.09.2020 containing 11 charges against the petitioner and the petitioner was required to submit reply to the aforesaid charge sheet up till 30.06.2020. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 30.06.2020 denying all the charges levelled against him. Considering the petitioner's reply dated 30.06.2020, the respondent no.1 did not proceed further and, therefore, neither any inquiry has been conducted by the respondent no.1 nor any inquiry officer was appointed to conduct inquiry with respect to the charges levelled against the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner continued to perform duties entrusted upon him as District Coordinator (Civil), Deoria.

5. Subsequently, another charge sheet was issued by respondent no.1 dated 27.1.2020 containing 12 charges, reply of which has been submitted by the petitioner on 26.12.2020 denying all the charges levelled against him. Again nothing was done with respect to the aforesaid charge sheet and the petitioner continued to perform his duties as District Coordinator (Civil), Deoria. Thereafter another charge sheet dated 16.03.2021 containing 5 charges was issued against the petitioner to which he submitted a reply dated 20.03.2021 denying the charges levelled against him, considering which no inquiry was conducted against the petitioner.

6. He further submits that the petitioner's work is supervisory in nature i.e. of looking into work assigned to the Gram Pradhan with respect to requirement of Primary School regarding infrastructure as well as facilities required in the educational institutions. The petitioner had no role either to arrange materials of infrastructures or labours or make arrangement of fund for carrying out of his supervisory work, rather all the things were under the control of Gram Pradhan and other authorities.

7. Surprisingly, without giving any notice or affording any opportun

        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
        logo-black

        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

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top