Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1466 (ALL)

RAJEEV KUMAR v. ADHYAKSHA, ZILA PANCHAYAT

2002-10-09

S.K.SINGH

body2002
S. K. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. K. Sachan and Sri P. C. Srivastava, learned counsel, who appears for the respondents. ( 2 ) CHALLENGE before this Court is the order dated 26. 8. 1997 passed by the respondent No. 1 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition ). It appears that the petitioner is claiming his appointment as a Clerk in clear vacancy in the office of Zila Panchayat, Kanpur Dehat, petitioner having been discontinued from service approached this Court by filing writ petition, i. e. , Writ Petition No. 131108 of 1997 which was disposed of by the Judgment dated 21. 4. 1997. This Court directed for deciding of the representation in accordance with law. It is in pursuance of this direction respondent No. 1 moved, and took impugned decision which made the petitioner aggrieved to come up to this Court. ( 3 ) ON perusal of the order impugned before this Court, it is clear that the vacancy on which petitioner claims his appointment was never published and no interview to fill up that post took place. There is further finding that petitioner was never given joining on the basis of the alleged appointment and he has been able to obtain the appointment letter in a fraudulent manner to which, the State Government and higher authorities have also been informed. ( 4 ) IN view of the aforesaid finding by the respondent No. 1 in its order and the material as exist on the record as has been filed by the petitioner himself clearly indicates that it is just on the basis of noting of the officials in the interest of the Zila Parishad, the petitioner was given appointment. In view of the aforesaid, there remains no dispute that petitioner was never given appointment after following procedure of there being due advertisement, taking recourse of selection process, giving opportunity to large number of similarly situated candidate and even much meritorious candidates than the petitioner. On the facts, appointment, of which, continuance is being claimed by the petitioner can be only termed as back door entry to which this Court cannot be a party. On the facts, appointment, of which, continuance is being claimed by the petitioner can be only termed as back door entry to which this Court cannot be a party. The appointment which is being claimed by the petitioner is not in the interest of public employment and in the event in this manner, the candidate is permitted to be appointed and to continue, this will be in clear violation of the mandate of the Constitution. Keeping in mind the problem of unemployment which is increasing day by day, it is in the interest of justice that appointment should take place after affording opportunity to every eligible candidate to take his chance by participating therein. It is also in the interest of the concern department that in the event large number of participants are there then they will have better chance to select comparatively meritorious candidate rather appointing a less meritorious candidate. ( 5 ) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Chairman under relevant service Rules, has a right/power to give direct appointment to the petitioner as is provided under rule 25 of the U. P. Zila Parishad Service Rules, 1970 also have no force. Even on perusal of the aforesaid rules, it is clear that even for direct appointment firstly the names are to be called from the Employment Exchange and in the event applications which are received are not three times of the requisite posts then due advertisement in the daily newspaper shall be published, and thereafter, it is for the Head of Department to decide that whether the appointment is to take place after the interview or written examination or by adopting both modes and it is thereafter result will be published in order of merits. As the case in hand lacks aforesaid process, the prayer as made in this petition cannot be allowed. Another reason for dis-allowing the claim of the petitioner is that the order impugned before this Court is dated 26th August, 1997, and thus, it is clear that the writ petition is not only belated but it is also a clear case of laches. ( 6 ) FOR all these reasons stated above, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed as such. .