Daya Ram vs State of U.P. and Others

The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18.04.2011 passed by the learned single Judge wherein the writ petition challenging the order dated 02.01.2011 adjusting Sri Munni Lal Gupta, Respondent No. 6 herein in place of the Appellant has been dismissed.

It appears that in the earlier round of litigation, the writ petition preferred by the Appellant was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 07.03.2011 whereupon a Special Appeal No. 411 of 2011 was filed, which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 01.04.2011 and the matter was restored to the file of the learned single Judge to look into the implication of the designation of the Appellant senior clerk (adjusted stenographer) and to decide the matter afresh. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court, the learned single Judge has decided the matter vide impugned judgment and order and had categorically said that on the question of implication of designation, no arguments have been advanced.

Sri N.L. Srivastava, learned Counsel submitted that he had made submission on this question also but the learned single Judge has not considered the same. On merits, he submitted that the order passed by the learned single Judge requires to be set-aside as the transfer order dated 02.01.2011 adjusting Respondent No. 6 herein in place of the Appellant was in violation of the various Government Orders passed in this behalf wherein an embargo has been placed upon the transfer in general.

We have heard Sri N.L. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Appellant, the learned standing counsel representing Respondents No. 1 to 3, 5 & 7 and Sri V.C. Mishra, learned Counsel who represents Respondent No. 4, and have perused the impugned judgment and order dated 18.04.2011 passed by the learned single Judge giving rise to the present appeal, the grounds taken in the memo of appeal and the documents filed along with it.

The submission of Srivastava that he has made submission on the question of implication of the designation senior clerk (adjusted stenographer) which the learned single Judge had failed to note is not borne out of the record. If in fact he has made his submission and the learned single Judge has observed that no such arguments was advanced, it will be open to the Appellant to make an application for review. So far as the merits of the present case is concerned, the interest of the Appellant has been safe-guarded by the learned single Judge by giving liberty to him to make a representation before the State Government to be decided within eight weeks. Whether the embargo placed on the transfer would apply in the present case ought to be decided by the State Government.

We, therefore, decline to interfere in the order passed by the learned single Judge. However, we may make it clear that if any such representation is made by the Appellant, the same be decided in accordance with law by the State Government within a month from the date on which a certified copy of this order along with a copy of the writ petition is filed before the Respondent No. 2 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant as well as Respondent No. 6.

The special appeal is disposed of as above.