Allahabad High Court
Anand Kumar Pandey vs State Of U.P. And Others on 13 July, 2010
Author: Shishir Kumar
Bench: Shishir Kumar
Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 39900 of 2010 Petitioner :- Anand Kumar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Ashok Kumar Singh Respondent Counsel :- C. S. C.,Anuj Kumar Hon'ble Shishir Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anuj Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent as well as learned Standing Counsel.
Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.04.2010 passed by the District Magistrate, by which the District Magistrate has terminated various Gram Rojgar Sewaks on the ground that they are not taking interest in the work in spite of various directions. Further allegation on the various person is that they are not visiting in the village for the purposes of working. In spite warning given to the persons to this effect, they have not improved their functioning.
In such circumstances, their engagement has been cancelled and it has been stated that fresh advertisement be made for the purposes of making appointment on the post of Gram Rojgar Sewak. According to the petitioner before passing the order, no notice and opportunity has been given to the petitioner, therefore, the order is bad in law. Further submission has been made that a Gram Rojgar Sewak is entitled to continue till the claim is continue.
On the other hand Sri Anuj Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the District Magistrate and various authorities on various occasion has inspected the work of the various persons and ultimately find that the work of these Gram Rojgar Sewak were not satisfactory. A warning to that effect has already been given, but there was no improvement, therefore, only to improve a scheme sponsored by the Central Government order has been passed.
I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. There is no dispute to this effect that petitioner is being engaged on a contract basis under a scheme on the basis of the Government Order. There is no statutory rules, by which the Gram Rojgar Sewaks are being engaged. If the work is not satisfactory then an order can be passed terminating their engagement immediately.
The contention of the petitioner is that within a period of contract, he is entitled to give notice and opportunity to the petitioner before passing the order of termination of his engagement. But in my opinion it is not acceptable, in view of the fact that a warning to that effect is given to the persons. Further their engagement are only for a period of one year contract. In case the work is not satisfactory or authorities are not satisfied with the work of the person, he can be removed immideiately that after completion of term.
Further the order impugned has been passed in the month of April, 2010 and advertisement has already been made in June, 2010 and applications have also been invited for the purposes of making fresh appointment. Petitioner has approached this Court after lapse of 3-1/2 months though the process of selection has already been compelted. Therefore, the writ petition devoids of merit and is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 13.7.2010 Pr/-