Allahabad High Court
Ram Dev Sharma vs Director Of Technical Education And 2 ... on 24 February, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 294
Bench: Govind Mathur, Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 348 of 2016 Appellant :- Ram Dev Sharma Respondent :- Director of Technical Education and others Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Khare, Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Dinesh Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Govind Mathur, Chief Justice Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Govind Mathur, C.J.) This appeal is before us to examine correctness of the judgment dated 19.11.2010 passed in Writ-A No. 8943 of 2001 (Ram Deo Sharma Versus Director of Technical Education and others).
By the judgment aforesaid, learned Single Bench dismissed the petition for writ on arriving at a conclusion that regularization of the appellant-petitioner on the post of Workshop Instructor (Foundry) was de hor the Rules.
In appeal, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that learned Single Bench failed to appreciate that the Workshop Instructor (Foundry) is a single cadre post and, therefore, no reservation could have been applied thereon and further the post aforesaid being a non-teaching post, there was no need to have approval from the Director of Technical Education, Uttar Pradesh for filling up the same.
The factual matrix of the case is that an appointment was accorded to the petitioner as Workshop Instructor (Foundry) in the Educational Session of 1984-85. The appointment was purely on ad hoc basis for a specific educational session. It appears that the same was extended time to time by different orders. A regular appointment then was given under an order dated 28.01.1994 in the pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2400. By the letter dated 16.10.2000, the appellant-petitioner conveyed to the Regional Office of the Technical Education (Central Zone), Lucknow that he was not getting regular pay-scale since June, 1994. A petition for writ then was preferred by him to have a direction for respondents to make the payment of salary in the pay-scale applicable for the post concerned. The writ petition came to be disposed of on 11.08.1999 with a direction to the Authority competent to decide the representation already submitted by the appellant within a period of two months. In compliance of the direction given, the Director of Technical Education, Uttar Pradesh by the order dated 07.10.1999 rejected the appellant-petitioner's claim by arriving at the conclusion that his appointment as Workshop Instructor (Foundry) was erroneous on the count that no procedure given under the Rules was adhered while giving him appointment and further that the appointment was accorded to him on a post earmarked for a Reserved Category candidate. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-petitioner again approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition that came to be dismissed under the judgment impugned.
On going through the entire record, we do not find any merit in this appeal. At the first instance, it would be appropriate to state that the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that no reservation could have been applied in the instant matter as the cadre of Workshop Instructor (Foundry) consists only one post is having no merit in view of the fact that, as a matter of fact, the cadre is of Workshop Instructor and not of any one trade like Foundry. The appellant appears to be confused with cadre strength and the post advertised. The reservation applies on cadre and vacancies are required to be filled in as per the applicable roster. There is no material available on record to disbelieve the stand taken by the respondents that in the cadre of Workshop Instructor, the post was coming on reservation point and that was to be filled in from the Member belonging to Scheduled Castes. Beside above, in the year 1992, it was communicated to the Institution that the post of Workshop Instructor is a teaching post and that is required to be filled in by adhering the procedure applicable for teaching post and despite of that, the procedure applicable was not adhered. The respondents, as such, are right in concluding that the appointment of appellant was de hor the Rules.
For the reasons given above, the appeal lacks merit, hence, is dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.2.2020
Shubham
(Samit Gopal, J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)