Allahabad High Court
Krishna Pal Singh Chauhan vs State Of U.P. And Others on 31 March, 2014
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
(AFR)
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17082 of 2004
Petitioner :- Krishna Pal Singh Chauhan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Birendra Singh,Ajay Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. By this petition, petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 4 to appoint him as regular Collection Amin. Admittedly, he was appointed as seasonal Collection Amin. After completion of more than seven years of service as seasonal Collection Amin, petitioner made representation before the respondent authorities for regularization of his service as Collection Amin under the U.P. Seasonal Collection Amin Rules, 1974.
2. The seasonal Collection Amin is not entitled for regularization as no such statutory provision has been shown to this Court. On the contrary, under Rule 5 of U.P. Collection Amins Service Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules 1974")there is a quota prescribed for seasonal Collection Amins to be considered for substantive appointment on the post of Collection Amins. There is neither any pleading nor any material placed on record to show that the vacancy of Collection Amins in the quota of seasonal Collection Amin was available or that the petitioner was within the zone of consideration and fulfilled eligibility conditions but was not considered for substantive appointment and a person junior to him has been so considered and appointed, thereby discriminating the petitioner. The pleadings in this regard are lacking, rendering it difficult for this court to provide any relief to the petitioner. Moreover, it is said that juniors to the petitioner have been appointed but neither their appointment is under challenge nor it is stated that petitioner has not been considered, though he was eligible and entitled to such consideration. The mere fact that the petitioner has worked for certain period as seasonal Collection Amin does not entitle him to claim regularization, as no right has been conferred upon him under any statute and none has been shown to this Court, despite repeated query from the learned counsel. Moreover, in absence of any statutory right a writ of mandamus does not lie.
3. It is well settled that a writ of mandamus would lie only if the petitioners are enforcing a legal right and the respondents, who are under statutory obligation to do or not to do something, have failed to do so.
4. In Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Sunder Lal Jain and another (2008) 2 SCC 280 the Apex Court after referring to its earlier judgments in Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fisherman Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. Sipahi Singh (1977) 4 SCC 145; Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani Vs. N.M. Shah, AIR 1966 SC 334, Dr. Uma Kant Saran Vs. State of Bihar 1993(1) SCC 485 observed as under:
" There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to para-12 of the writ petition, wherein it was pleaded that respondent no.5, who is junior to him in seniority list has been appointed on regular basis while the petitioner has been ignored. I am afraid, the pleading is wholly vague and it does not further the case of petitioner at all. It is not the case of the petitioner that while appointing respondent no.5 on substantive basis, procedure prescribed under Rules 1974 was not followed or that the petitioner was not considered at all. In absence of such pleading, the Court is bound to infer that before selection and appointment, normal administrative procedure has been observed with strict observance of Rules. If after following the procedure prescribed in the Rules a person junior to petitioner was found fit for substantive appointment and the petitioner was not so found, there can be no objection for substantive appointment of a person, junior to petitioner. In case, the petitioner is of the view that appointment of respondent no.5 is illegal or contrary to Rules, it was open to him to challenge the same which has not been done in the instant case. In the circumstances, the mere fact that respondent no.5 has been appointed on substantive basis, would not help the petitioner either way.
6. The discussion made above, leads to ultimate conclusion that the relief sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted.
7. The writ petition is devoid of merit.
8. Dismissed.
9. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 31.3.2014
LJ/-
