AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shabihul Hasnain, J.—Heard Sri Vishal Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.
The writ petition has been filed against the order dated 12.3.20M passed by Director, Agriculture, Uttar Pradesh. This order has been passed in, compliance of the orders passed in writ petition No. 231 (S/S) of 2010 by this Court on 19.1.2010. The petitioner is Clerk in the department of Agriculture, ft was his claim that he is nontechnical person and he has been posted on a technical post. In that writ petition the Court has observed as under :
"Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a simply clerk having no technical qualification and as such the order dated 24.11.2001 whereby the Director Agriculture passed an order asking the petitioner to take the charge of the godown. Counsel for the petitioner submits that this order is also bad in view of the Government Order dated 2.5.1995 wherein it is provided that the technical staff should be posted for technical purposes. He also submits that immediately after the order dated 24.11.2009, the petitioner gave a representation to the Director, Agriculture through proper channel pointing out the difficulties and other noticeable facts."
The Court observed that it was a trivial controversy and the Director was the best person to decide the controversy. Accordingly, the impugned order, Annexure No. 1, has been passed which is under challenge. The Director has stated in his decision that his order dated 24.11.2009 by which the petitioner was posted on technical job is being cancelled. He has further directed that the petitioner shall not be posted on any technical post in future. In a way, the total grievance of the petitioner has been ventilated and his claim not to work on a technical post has been entirely allowed by the Director in compliance of the Court orders.
Learned Standing Counsel has stated that the order has been passed in compliance of the Court''s orders and whatever grievance was raised by the petitioner has been looked into by the Director personally and the order has been passed cancelling the order which was challenged in the earlier writ petition, as such, the petitioner does not have any grievance whatsoever and this writ petition is totally misconceived and not maintainable.
Sri Vishal Singh has insisted that there is still discrimination and the petitioner has been given the work which has been allotted to his other colleagues. There is not even a whisper in the writ petition as to what work the petitioner has been deprived. In paragraph7 of the writ petition it has been stated that the authority out of vengeance excluded the petitioner from the work, which was not of technical nature deliberately and the other similarly situated person have been given as usual the work from which the petitioner is being deprived by the Annexure Nos. 1 and 3, are following persons being the Clerk (NonTechnical Persons), the work from which the petitioner is being deprived :
Sri Mangal Prasad, Senior Clerk, District Agriculture Office.
Sri K.K. Yadav, Senior Clerk, District Agriculture Office (Raksha).
Sri B.B. Lal, Senior Clerk (Krishi Yantra).
Sri Mithilesh Kumar Jaiswal, Senior Clerk.
This argument itself is contradictory and it does not appeal to the Court at all. Even otherwise, no employee in the clerical cadre can maintain a writ petition being given any specific job to his liking. Moreover, a writ petition will never lie on such issues which are strictly within the domain of the executive and the officer concerned under whom the petitioner is working. Firstly, he approached the Court that he can not be given a technical work and when the technical work is not allotted to him then he again approached the Court that he is being discriminated. It appears that the petitioner, who is clerk is more interested in some particular posting which has been denied to him and he out of frustration is abusing the process of law by filing successive writ petitions which is not a healthy trend.
Sri Vishal Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed two authorities : State of Haryana and others v. Jagdish, 2010 (89) AIC 156 (SC)=(2010) 4 SCC 216 and Secretary and Curator Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and others, 2010 (89) AIC 2(SC) =(2010) 3SCC 732 to impress upon the Court that the representation should be decided by a speaking order. Perusal of the decision on the representation makes it manifestly clear that the order is very clearly worded and when the representation is being allowed no further reasons are necessary because the grievance of the petitioner has been removed in toto. The reasons are required when the grievance is negated and a person wants to challenge that order in superior Court or before the superior authority. Here in this case, the order against which the writ petition was filed and the order by which the petitioner was aggrieved has not only been cancelled but it has also been provided that in future also such a mistake will not be repeated. The petitioner could not have had any better order from any other authority in any. other manner.
The writ petition is misconceived hence dismissed. The Court refrains from passing any order for costs.