Allahabad High Court
Pawan Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Others on 1 July, 2019
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17506 of 2006
Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikas Budhwar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,K.R. Sirohi
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Pooja Arora for the respondents.
Petitioner claims to have been engaged as Class-IV employee by the District Judge, Ghazipur on 20.8.2002. He was required to work in the Fast Track Court. The appointment order issued to the petitioner clearly reveals that the appointment itself was offered to petitioner on an application filed by the petitioner before the authority concerned. Neither any advertisement was published nor any procedure required has been followed for offering public employment. Petitioner appears to have worked for some time and thereafter his services were discontinued by the District Judge, Ghazipur on the ground that the Fast Track Court itself was supposed to continue only till 28.2.2005. Aggrieved by this communication, petitioner is before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that no procedure was followed before terminating his services and the action of the respondents, impugned in the present petition, is violative of the principles of natural justice.
Learned counsel for the parties submits that considering the nature of employment offered to petitioner, no right had accrued to the petitioner to continue in service.
A perusal of the record would go to show that the instant writ petition was filed in the year 2006 and while entertaining the writ petition, following orders were passed on 30.3.2006:-
" From a perusal of para 15 of the petition it is evident that the petitioner admits that there is no Fast Track Court available at district judgeship, Ghazipur for the moment and as such in these circumstances, it does not stand to reason that the petitioner should e permitted to continue in terms of the circular of the High Court dated 24.5.2005. IN the absence of any Fast Track Court available there is no question of continuing the petitioner at present.
Sri Budhwar, learned counsel for the petitioner states that it would like to file a S.A. explaining the aforesaid position.
Let the aforesaid affidavit be filed as and when convenient to the parties."
A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the counsel for the petitioner in which it is stated that certain Fast Track Courts are available at District Ghazipur and District Mau. The averments made in the supplementary affidavit appear to be wholly vague. Specific details in that regard are clearly missing. Even otherwise, this Court finds no substance in the grievance raised in this petition inasmuch as the petitioner's engagement was on the basis of an application moved directly before the District Judge without following any procedure known to law.
Law is otherwise settled that such public appointment cannot be offered except by following the procedure, consistent with the mandate of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court, while dealing with the grant of employment in district courts, has been pleased to hold in Renu and others Vs. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari and another, reported in AIR 2014 SC 2175 that the engagement of such persons can only be in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. In the absence of any fair procedure having been adopted before proceeded to offer appointment to petitioner, no right accrued in favour of petitioner to continue particularly when the Fast Track Court itself was not available, wherein alone the engagement was offered to petitioner. Even otherwise, petitioner has remained out of employment for the last 14 years. No relief thus can be granted to the petitioner.
Writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.7.2019
n.u.
