Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1988 DIGILAW 960 (ALL)

Shilesh Chandra Saxena v. State of U. P

1988-10-12

D.S.SINHA, S.K.DHAON

body1988
JUDGMENT 1. The controversy in this petition and in the accompanying writ petition No. 6930 of 1988 centres round the life of the waiting list prepared some time in July, 1986 by the Director of Local Bodies for the purposes of appointing Pipe Line Inspectors on ad-hoc and temporary officiating basis Hence the petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. 2. In this petition a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of State of U.P. A rejoinder-affidavit too has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State Government are agreed that the stand taken by the State Government in this petition cannot be different from one to be taken in Writ Petition No. 6930 of 1988. Therefore, the Standing Counsel has conceded that the counter affidavit filed in this petition may be taken into account while disposing of the accompanying petition. We have heard the learned counsel in both the petitions. Though these petitions have not been formally admitted, yet, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties we are proceeding to dispose of these petitions finally. 3. On 25-2-1985 an advertisement was Issued by the Director of Local Bodies inviting applications for the appointment of pipe Line Inspectors on ad-hoc and temporary basis. This must have been done pursuant to rule 31 of U.P. Palika (Centralised) Service Rules, 1966. The advertisement made it clear that the appointments were to tenure till regular appointments were made by the Public Service Commission. On 15-1-1986, interviews were held. Some time in July, 1986 a waiting list of 199 persons was prepared, Out of this waiting list 67 persons have been given temporary appointment. It appears that the Director of Local Bodies on 11-11-1987 sent a communication to the Secretary in the Government of Uttar Pradesh with the requisite that as had been the practice in the past life of the waiting list may be extended by three years. This request was turned down by the Special Secretary by his communication dated 28-11-1987. The Special Secretary took the stand that the life of the waiting list having expired it could not be extended. This decision of the Special Secretary as contained in the said communication is impugned in this petition. 4. This request was turned down by the Special Secretary by his communication dated 28-11-1987. The Special Secretary took the stand that the life of the waiting list having expired it could not be extended. This decision of the Special Secretary as contained in the said communication is impugned in this petition. 4. During the pendency of this petition, on 26-3-1988, a second advertisement was issued by the Director inviting applications for the appointment of pipe Line Inspectors on ad hoc and officiating basis. In Writ Petition No. 6930 of 1988 this advertisement is being impugned. 5. In both the petitions the crucial question to be determined is. What is the life of the waiting list prepared in July, 1986. To the counter-affidavit a copy of the Government Order dated 25-3-1985 has been annexed as Annexure-1, This Government Order purports to modify the Government Order dated 30-1-1979. We have perused the Government Order dated 30-1-1979. On reading of the same we are satisfied that its operation is confined to the Combined State Services. It has, therefore, no application to the appointment made by the Director of Local Bodies. Furthermore, even the Government Order dated 25-3-1985 makes it clear that the same has been made applicable to those services with respect to which the U.P. Public Services Commission has to conduct the examination for the purpose of recruitment. 6. We have examined the U.P. Palika (Centralised) Service Rules, 1966. In particular, we have seen entry 11 of rule 3, referable to U.P. Palika Water works, Electrical and Mechanical Engineering (Subordinate) Service. Sub-para (vi) talks of Chief Meter Inspectors, Chief Pipe Line Inspectors, Chief Zonal Inspectors etc. Sub-para (viii), in particular, refers to pipe Line Inspector of Mahapalikas and Municipal Boards. It is thus clear that the Pipe Line Inspectors referred to in the aforesaid advertisement are covered by para 11 of rule 3 of the U.P. Palika (Centralised) Service Rule, 1986. Rule 31 of the said Rules provides that notwithstanding anything contained the State Government may also make ad hoc appointments on temporary officiating arrangement for the post falling vacant substantively or temporarily. A reading of the Rules indicates that no limitation has been prescribed for the life of the list prepared for purposes of making permanent appointments. Likewise, no life has been prescribed for the list prepared for making ad hoc and temporary officiating appointments. A reading of the Rules indicates that no limitation has been prescribed for the life of the list prepared for purposes of making permanent appointments. Likewise, no life has been prescribed for the list prepared for making ad hoc and temporary officiating appointments. No rule of G.O. has been brought to our notice by the learned Standing Counsel to indicate otherwise. In the absence of any rule either way, we see no reason to limit the life of the list prepared either for making permanent appointment or temporary appointment. We also have no rational reason for not taking the view that the life of the list ensures till it is exhausted. However, we may immediately add that some reasonable period must be assigned, other-wise the situation would be that a list prepared may last for an indefinite period. We get some clue from the fact that in the past the State Government itself had accepted the recommendation of the Director and had extended the life of the waiting list for a period of three years. This period in our opinion is quite reasonable. We, therefore, take the view that even though no particular period is prescribed for the life of a waiting list yet the same should not be given any extension beyond the period of three years from the date of its preparation. To put it differently, for the purposes of making an order for temporary appointment the list should be deemed to have exhausted itself on the expiry of three years from the date of its preparation. In the instant case, as already stated, the list had been prepared in July, 1986, and therefore, it has to be given a life till July, 1989. 7. These petitions have remained pending in this Court for more than six months. The filing of this petition has been necessitated by erroneous view taken by the Special Secretary, Government of U.P. Keeping in view the equity of the case we direct that the waiting list prepared in July, 1986 for the appointment of Pipe Line Inspectors in pursuance of the notification dated 25-3-1985 shall be given a life for a period of 3 years from the date of preparation of the list. We have taken this view on account of the fact that these writ petitions were pending for more than six months. These writ petitions succeed and are allowed. 8. We have taken this view on account of the fact that these writ petitions were pending for more than six months. These writ petitions succeed and are allowed. 8. In writ petition No. 4855 of 1988 the decision of the Special Secretary U.P. Government as communicated by his letter dated 28-11-1987 (Annexure-4) is quashed. In writ petition No. 6930 of 1988 the second advertisement issued by the Director on 26-3-1988 for inviting applications to fill up the vacancies for the post of Pipe Line Inspectors on temporary and ad-hoc basis is also quashed. The respondent shall treat the life of the waiting list prepared in July, 1986 to have been extended for a period of 3 years from July, 1986. The respondents shall now consider the appointment of the candidates who are still in the waiting list prepared in July, 1986. There shall be no order as costs.