Allahabad High Court
Jai Prakash Uttam vs State Of U.P. And 2 Ors on 3 March, 2020
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 85 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1228 of 2015 Petitioner :- Jai Prakash Uttam Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Singh,Ashok Khare,R.B. Singh,Siddharth Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.B.Pal Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Parashar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for the State and Sri Santosh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 05.12.2014 passed by the Regional Level Committee i.e. respondent No.2 rejecting the approval to the appointment of the petitioner.
Facts in brief as disclosed in the petition are that Jan Shikshan Inter College, Prempur, Badagaon, District Kanpur Nagar (herein after referred to as the 'institution') is an intermediate college governed by the Provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. On the retirement of one Raj Kumar Uttam on 30.05.2006 post of Clerk fell vacant in the institution. The said post was advertised in the Times of India and Swatantra Bharat on 27.10.007 and 24.10.2007 respectively, copy of the same has been brought on record as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition. Pursuant to the selection of the petitioner by the selection Committee a letter was forwarded for the approval, which remained pending and he was permitted to join without mandatory approval in the year 2007 itself. It appears that in between one Narendra Singh, who was a Class-IV employees in the institution approached this Court by filing the writ petition No.57689 of 2007 challenging the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the selection on the solitary sanctioned post of clerk cannot be made by direct recruitment, it can be made only by promotion as per the provisions of Chapter-II, Regulation-2 of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. This court vide order dated 21.09.2010 partly allowed the writ petition and directed the Regional Level Committee to examine the matter and take the decision. Pursuant to which Regional Level Committee on 21.05.2011 held that the post in question can be filled only by promotion.
Aggrieved by the order of the Regional Level Committee as well as order dated 21.09.2010 passed in writ petition No.57689 of 2007, a Special Appeal No.1207 of 2011 was preferred by the petitioner challenging the order of Regional Level Committee, which was dismissed vide order dated 27.02.2014 giving liberty to the petitioner that if he has any grievance against the order of Regional Level Committee dated 21.05.2011, the remedy available to him is to approach the writ Court, copy of the same has been brought on record as Annexure 6 to the petition.
Against the order dated 21.05.2011 passed by the Regional Level Committee, petitioner filed Writ Petition (A) No.23371 of 2014 and this Court on 28.04.2014 quashed the order dated 21.05.2011 and directed the Regional Level Committee to consider the claim for approval on the post of Assistant Clerk in accordance with law. The said order has also been brought on record as Annexure No.7 to the writ petition.
It appears that the Regional Level Committee by order impugned dated 05.12.2014 had taken a decision and rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of approval to his appointment on the ground that government order dated 17th January, 2014 provides that the Assistant Clerks to be appointed should have the qualification of computer (DOEACE) and typing speed 25/30 words per minute. The order impugned also recites about the Government order dated 23.05.2012 which provides that the advertisement should contain minimum and maximum age, as well as knowledge of typing for the post in question but the said advertisement did not disclose the said fact.
Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Regional Level Committee while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of approval to the appointment of petitioner has placed reliance upon the Government order of 2014 & 2012, which are prospective in nature while appointment to the post in question was made in the year 2007 when these two government orders were not in existence.
Sri Khare further submitted that Sri Narendra Singh had already filed an affidavit before the Regional Level Committee that he was not contesting the matter and was not claiming the promotion.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State placed reliance upon the para Nos. 11 and 12 of the counter affidavit.
Having heard the rival submissions and from perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was selected on the post of Assistant Clerk. Pursuant to the advertisement of year 2007 and Regional Level committee while passing the order impugned on 05.10.2014 had taken note of the two government orders of 2014 and 2012 denying approval to the petitioner which were not in existence at the time when post in question was advertised. Further the affidavit so filed by Narendra Singh before the Regional Level Committee stating that he is not making any claim for the post in question, as such the matter, sofar as Narendra Singh is concerned does not survive.
In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the order impugned is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is hereby quashed as the government orders of year 2012 and 2014 which are prospective in nature shall not apply in for the advertisement made in the year 2007. The writ petition stand allowed.
It is needless to say that the petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits.
Order Date :- 3.3.2020 Pr/-