State of U.P. and Others vs Rajendra Prasad

The Special Appeal has been filed by the State being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.4.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge by which he has quashed the order dated 19.3.2002 passed by the District Registrar, Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi and had reinstated the writ Petitioner-Respondent herein as a class-IV employee in the office of the District Registrar, Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi.

We have heard learned Standing Counsel at length and have perused the material and other evidence on record. No one appears on behalf of Respondent.

The writ Petitioner had filed the writ petition being aggrieved by an order dated 19.3.2002 passed by the District Registrar, Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi by which he had been removed from service on the post of Peon in the office of the District Registrar, Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi seeking a writ of mandamus to reinstate him on the post of Peon and also a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 19.3.2002.

The learned Single Judge having examined the matter has come to the conclusion that the Petitioner, who was appointed as a part time waterman and who had been removed on 12.8.1998 had been reinstated on a temporary basis on 13.6.2001 in the regular pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200. This order had been passed on the basis of the fact that the Petitioner had already put in 18 years of service in the said department.

The learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the order dated 19.3.2002 passed by the District Registrar, Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi cancelling the appointment order dated 13.6.2001 had been passed without giving to the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing and without taking into consideration the fact that the Petitioner was entitled to be regularized under the U.P. Regularization of Daily Wage Appointment and Group-D Post Rules, 2001.

The learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that the order cancelling the appointment of the Petitioner on the basis of the Government Order dated 19.7.1998 was wrongful because the ban, which was imposed under the said Government Order was on the making of new appointments but did not extend to consideration for regularization on a class-IV post in the department concerned.

The learned Single Judge, therefore, opined that the cancellation of the Petitioner''s appointment was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The learned Standing Counsel has strenuously argued that the appointment of the Petitioner had been made de-hors the rules and in ignorance of the ban, which had been imposed on fresh appointments by the Government Order dated 19.7.1998.

However, having heard learned Counsel for the State and having perused the order we are of the opinion that the very fact that the Petitioner had put in 18 years of regular service the department concerned had certainly entitled him to be considered for regularization on a Group-D post under the rules, which were applicable and the ban, which was imposed for selection on fresh vacancies did not extend to the Petitioner. Furthermore, the removal of the Petitioner had been made without giving him an opportunity of hearing and that was no doubt violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge reinstating the Petitioner does not suffer from any legal infirmity.

The Special appeal is dismissed as above.