Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 626 (ALL)

Babu Ram v. D. M. Jalaun

2019-03-07

ASHOK KUMAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ashok Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sharad Chandra Srivastava, learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order of dismissal dated 7.8.1995 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition). 3. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere or refuse the work of the petitioner on the post of Collection Amin. The petitioner has further prayed for payment of salary month to month. 4. The writ petition was entertained on 31.8.1995 and an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner. This Court has permitted the petitioner to continue on the post of Collection Amin and therefore, the petitioner is continuing as a Collection Amin from the date of the interim order is passed by this Court. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was selected on the post of Collection Amin and an appointment letter was issued by the competent authority on 12.1.1995. The petitioner joined the services in pursuance of the appointment letter/selection letter. It is pertinent to mention here that nine posts were advertised of reserved vacancy of SC/ST post of "Collection Amin". 6. From perusal of the pleadings and the documents filed by the petitioner it is noticed that two persons namely Anand Kumar Khare and Rajesh Kumar Khare were appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin in the year 1985. Both the aforesaid Seasonal Collection Amins continued their services as Seasonal Collection Amin till 1991. The proceeding for removal of the petitioner from the services started when Anand Kumar Khare and Rajesh Kumar Khare have objected the appointment of the petitioner as well as some other candidates who were appointed as Collection Amin on the reserved vacancy of SC/ST. 7. Anand Kumar Khare and Rajesh Kumar Khare have approached this Court against the action of the respondents not allowing them to continue as Seasonal Collection Amin. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties a writ petition was filed by Sri Khare being Writ Petition No. 24550 of 1991 which was disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners whenever the post of Seasonal Collection Amin is advertised/vacant. 8. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties a writ petition was filed by Sri Khare being Writ Petition No. 24550 of 1991 which was disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners whenever the post of Seasonal Collection Amin is advertised/vacant. 8. Admittedly the selection of the petitioner and similar situated other persons was made on account of the vacancies advertised for reserved vacancy of SC/ST and the appointment letter was issued. It appears that this fact was not brought to the notice of this Court by Anand Kumar Khare in his writ petition and in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 24550 of 1991 Anand Kumar Khare and Rajesh Kumar Khare claimed that they were in fact eligible to be appointed as Collection Amin in pursuance of the order passed by this Court. 9. Since both, Anand Kumar Khare and Rajesh Kumar Khare, were not appointed as the Collection Amin they approached this Court by means of a Contempt Application No. 729 of 1995. This Court has proceeded to call the respondents and thereafter passed an order for compliance of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 24550 of 1991. 10. In the aforesaid background two persons namely, Anand Kumar Khare and Rajesh Kumar Khare were appointed as Collection Amin and the services of the petitioner and other appointees were terminated. 11. This Court while considering the case on previous date has requested the learned standing counsel to obtain the instructions with respect of status of the complainants namely, Anand Kumar Khare and Rajesh Kumar Khare. Learned standing counsel has received the instructions and has pointed out that Anand Kumar Khare was appointed on the post of Collection Amin on 4.11.1995 (in pursuance of the order passed by this Court and the order passed in contempt application) and Rajesh Kumar Khare was also appointed as Collection Amin on 15.12.1997. 12. Learned standing counsel has informed the Court that both Anand Kumar Khare and Rajesh Kumar Khare are confirmed as Collection Amin vide orders dated 15.10.2007 and 23.5.2015 and both of them are continuing their services as Collection Amin. 13. Now the question remains as to how the respondents proceeded to terminate the petitioner and similar situated appointees. It is noticed by this Court that admittedly the vacancies were meant for reserved category of SC/ST. 13. Now the question remains as to how the respondents proceeded to terminate the petitioner and similar situated appointees. It is noticed by this Court that admittedly the vacancies were meant for reserved category of SC/ST. Anand Kumar Khare and Rajesh Kumar Khare are not SC/ST. However, since their appointment is confirmed, this Court does not want to comment. 14. So far as the termination of the present petitioner is concerned, during the course of argument learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the other selected Collection Amins, who had also filed the writ petitions are appointed as confirmed Collection Amin namely Sri Umesh Chandra, Sri Prahalad Narayan, Sri Suresh Singh and Sri Mahendra Singh and their date of confirmation as Collection Amin is 14.3.2008 (Annexure 1 to the rejoinder affidavit). Learned counsel for the petitioner has informed the Court that after the order confirming the appointment of above four Collection Amins the writ petition filed by Sri Prahalad Narayan and Sri Umesh Chandra are dismissed as withdrawn. 15. Learned standing counsel has fairly accepted that the impugned order of termination is wholly unjustified for the reasons that the same has been passed at the behest of the complaint made by two claimants namely Anand Kumar Khare and Rajesh Kumar Khare. Learned standing counsel has not disputed that the appointment of the petitioner was made on a reserved vacancy meant for SC/ST. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is working on the post of Collection Amin from the date of his appointment and in pursuance of the interim order granted by this Court dated 31.8.1995, there remains no reason to discontinue the services of the petitioner. 17. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel, this Court finds that the impugned order has been passed at the behest of two persons who claimed that the appointment of the petitioner was illegal, whereas the appointment of the petitioner was fully justified and was made on the basis of the post which was meant for reserved category of SC/ST and since the petitioner is a Scheduled Caste he is entitled to continue as Collection Amin in pursuance of an appointment letter issued in his favour dated 12.1.2995. 18. 18. In view of the aforesaid, without going into any other controversy once it is fully established that the impugned order passed by the respondent no.2 is wholly illegal and is prima facie based on the proceeding initiated by Anand Kumar Khare and Rajesh Kumar Khare and the orders passed by this Court in their favour, there remains no justification to restrain the petitioner to continue as a Collection Amin. The impugned order dated 5.8.1995 (wrongly mentioned in the prayer as 7.8.1995) is hereby set aside and quashed. 19. The writ petition is allowed.