Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1316 (ALL)

ANAND KUMAR v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-04-23

A.P.SAHI

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Sri Bhagwati Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.C. Gupta for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner in service as a Routine Grade Clerk and not to interfere in the discharge of his duties as such. The respondents were called upon to file a counter-affidavit which has been filed and sworn by Mr. L.P. Sinha, Assistant Manager, Legal Cell, U.P. Jal Nigam. 3. Sri R.C. Gupta has invited the attention of the Court to the said counter-affidavit; a copy whereof was served on the learned counsel for the petitioner on 25.2.1999. The contents of the said counter-affidavit have not been denied. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. The counter-affidavit has it’s own story to tell. It discloses that the then Superintendent Engineer Mr. Munnar Ram, who proceeded to hold the selection in response to the advertisement, had been time and again, reprimanded by his superior Officers not to proceed with the selections for various reasons. Not only this, after the selections have been advertised and the Executive Engineer had called upon the petitioner to appear in the Interview, fresh orders were issued by the Chief Engineer directing the Superintending Engineer as well as the Executive Engineer to treat the said process as having been cancelled and a fresh authorization was issued in favour of the General Manager. In spite of these repeated orders, which have been filed in bulk alongwith the counter-affidavit, the said Munnar Ram proceeded to issue a letter of appointment on 11.9.1997 in favour of the petitioner. The letter has been issued from the Camp Office and not from the office of the Superintending Engineer. Needless to repeat that there were orders right from June 1997 till 13.8.1997 incorporating the said directions preventing and prohibiting Mr. Munnar Ram to hold selection yet Sri Munnar Ram proceeded to assume authority and acted in breach of the orders of his superiors. Left with no option, the Chief Engineer had to ultimately cancel all such appointments vide order dated 17.9.1997. Consequently, the petitioner was not allowed to function on the post of Routine Grade Clerk on which he claimed selection. 6. The counter-affidavit, as noted above, was served on the learned counsel for the petitioner way back in the year 1999. Left with no option, the Chief Engineer had to ultimately cancel all such appointments vide order dated 17.9.1997. Consequently, the petitioner was not allowed to function on the post of Routine Grade Clerk on which he claimed selection. 6. The counter-affidavit, as noted above, was served on the learned counsel for the petitioner way back in the year 1999. There is no challenge to the orders that were passed cancelling the selections. In the absence of any such challenge or any certiorari having been prayed for, it is ununderstandable as to how the mandamus as requested can be granted. The submissions of Sri Bhagwati Prasad are, therefore, legally unsustainable. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts that have been brought on record, the relief prayed for cannot be granted and as a matter of fact in law the writ petition itself would not be entertainable in the absence of any plausible challenge to the cancellation order. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed.