Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 88 (UTT)

Ashok Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal

2011-02-17

BARIN GHOSH, V.K.BIST

body2011
Judgment Barin Ghosh, J. In the year 1999, an advertisement was published by the Public Service Commission, State of Uttar Pradhesh. The advertisement talked about existing vacancies in the post of Personal Assistants available in the State's Secretariat. State of Uttar Pradesh had only one Secretariat situated at Lucknow. The private respondents, namely respondent Nos. 6 to 9, responded to the advertisement and their response succeeded. On 24th March, 2000, the Public Service Commission, State of Uttar Pradesh, announced such success of the said respondents. On 9th November, 2000, State of Uttar Pradesh was bifurcated into two States, namely, State of Uttar Pradesh and the state of Uttarakhand. On and from 9th November, 200, a Secretariat for the State of Uttarakhand came into existence. 2. On 29th, January, 2001, respondent Nos. 6 to 9 were appointed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and were asked to joint their duties in the Secretariat of the State of Uttar Pradesh situated at Lucknow. Respondent Nos. 6 to 9, accordingly, joined the services of the State of Uttar Pradesh at its Secretariat at Lucknow. Subsequent thereto, it appears that respondent Nos. 6 to 9 were asked to discharge their duties as Personal Assistants attached to State Secretariat in the Secretariat of the State of Uttarakhand situated at Dehradun. Subsequently, respondent Nos. 6 to 9 wanted to permanently remain as employees of the State of Uttarakhand and, accordingly, while purported to exercise options to become members of the cadre of the State of Uttarakhand, approached the Union of India to allocate them to the State of Uttarakhand. Inasmuch as respondent Nos. 6 to 9 were appointed by the State of Uttar Pradesh subsequent to the creation of the State of Uttarakhand, the Central Government, in terms of the provisions contained in the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, had no authority to deal with the said respondents. The Central Government, accordingly, in writing communicated the same to the said respondents. Subsequently, it appears that the State of Uttar Pradesh expressed that it has no objection in the even State of Uttarakhand takes respondent Nos. 6 to 9 as Personal Assistants attached to Secretariat for the State Secretariat of the State of Uttarakhand situated at Dehradun, It seems that the State of Uttarakhand, on the basis of such no objection, is purporting to treat respondent Nos. 6 to 9 as its employees. 3. 6 to 9 as Personal Assistants attached to Secretariat for the State Secretariat of the State of Uttarakhand situated at Dehradun, It seems that the State of Uttarakhand, on the basis of such no objection, is purporting to treat respondent Nos. 6 to 9 as its employees. 3. We asked the learned counsel for the State of Uttarakhand as well as the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 6 to 9 to show us any law in terms whereof one State can appoint permanently an employee of another State. Both the counsel failed to bring to our notice any such law. It must be kept in mind that although the State is authorized to make laws. It is also obliged to obey and follow such. There being no law authorizing one state to appoint an employee of another State as its employee, presumption or assumption on the part of the State of Uttarakhand, on the basis of the said no objection of the State of Uttar Pradesh that respondent Nos. 6 to 9 may be treated as employees of the State of Uttarakhand, is baseless. 4. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of by declaring that respondent Nos. 6 to 9 were not, nor are employees of the State of Uttarakhand and, accordingly, cannot be treated as employees of the State of Uttarakhand. They having been appointed by and for the State of Uttar Pradesh, they were and shall remain employees of the State of Uttar Pradesh.