Chhintar Mal Meena vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4226 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 20
 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 26579 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- Chhintar Mal Meena
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Civil Defence Sectt.Lko. & Ors
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 16.09.2019 passed by respondent no.2, contained at Annexure 13 to the petition and also to command the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of Deputy Controller with all consequential benefits.

Brief facts of the case are that number of posts were advertised by the Directorate of Civil Defence, U.P. including five posts of Assistant Deputy Controller, Junior Scale on 08.09.1989. The petitioner being 'Meena' caste belongs to Scheduled Tribe Category applied for the said post and after going through selection process, the petitioner was declared successful. The appointment letter dated 28.06.1990 (Annexure 3 with the paper book) was issued on 17.07.1990. The services of the petitioner was made permanent by the department vide order dated 26.08.1998 and thereafter, he was promoted on the post of Assistant Deputy Controller, Senior Scale vide order dated 11.01.2008. The petitioner was further promoted on the post of Deputy Controller vide order dated 31.07.2013. A show cause notice dated 08.02.2019 was issued to the petitioner to explain as to why the service may not be terminated as you had wrongly taken the benefit of Scheduled Tribes under 'Meena Category' which has not been notified as Scheduled Tribes in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply on 22.04.2019, which is placed on record as Annexure 11 with the paper book. Since nothing has been done after submission of the reply, the petitioner challenged the show cause notice by filing a writ petition No.24669 (SS) of 2019, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.09.2019 with direction to respondents to decide the explanation of the petitioner. Before the order of this Hon'ble Court could be served on the respondents, the impugned order dated 16.09.2019, which is under challenge, has been passed dismissing the petitioner from his services. Hence this writ petition.

With this background, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava has vehemently submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the respondents without taking into consideration the judgment of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court dated 24.04.2003 passed in W.P. No.22271 (C) of 2000 (Sunil Kumar vs. Life Insurance Corporation and others), wherein it has been held that if there was no restriction or bar in the advertisement relating to selection and appointment of SC/ST candidates belonging to other State, then it cannot be said that any misconduct on the part of the petitioner has been committed. It has also been submitted that no charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner and without any disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner has been removed from the services. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that there was no bar or restriction in the advertisement that reserved category candidate belonging to other State will not be entitled to any benefit of reservation in the selection. It has also been submitted that while applying for the said post in pursuance to advertisement dated 08.09.1989, the petitioner has clearly mentioned that he belongs to 'Meena Category' under Scheduled Tribes quota and after considering the petitioner's eligibility, he was appointed on the post of Assistant Deputy Controller, Junior Scale. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is not the case of the respondents that he has committed any fraud or fabricated any documents in getting the employment, however, his services have been terminated on the ground that 'Meena' Caste is not notified under Scheduled Tribes category in the State of U.P., therefore, if any benefit has been given to the petitioner by mistake at the time of initial appointment, the same mistake may be rectified and due to that reason, his services were terminated.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Division Bench of this Court has clearly held that if there was no bar in the advertisement that the candidates of other States belonging to SC/ST category were not entitled to the benefit of reservation, the respondents/competent authority cannot terminate the services of any employee who has got the job under the reserved category quota. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite parties failed to appreciate that there was no fault or inaction on the part of the petitioner for which he should be penalized and that too without affording any opportunity and initiating the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is wholly, illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Rules and as such, the same deserves to be quashed and petition is liable to be allowed.

Sri Sanjay Sareen, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the impugned order has been passed after due consideration of the entire facts relating to the appointment of the petitioner. A committee was also formed which considered the issue of the appointment of the petitioner and found that the appointment was made de hors to the reservation rules. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the petitioner has failed to make out any case for grant of any relief by this Court. He has submitted that that the caste "Meena" is not notified in the State of U.P. as 'Scheduled Tribes' but it has been notified in the State of Rajasthan, therefore, the benefit of reservation cannot be given to the petitioner in the State of U.P. It has also been submitted that the candidature of the petitioner has wrongly been considered in the Scheduled Tribe category at the time of initial appointment and thus, the said mistake has been rectified while it came to the notice of the competent authority. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the since the petitioner is not covered under the Scheduled Tribes category in the State of U.P., therefore, he is not entitled for any relief and the petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the advertisement issued on 08.09.1989.

It is admitted fact that there is no bar in the advertisement that the candidates of another State cannot take the benefit of reservation of any caste, which has not been notified in the State of U.P. The Division Bench of this Court has already held in Sunil Kumar's case (supra) that if a person belonging to Scheduled Tribes of another State seeks employment on the basis of an advertisement issued in another State, they cannot be denied the benefit of reservation. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner had applied for the appointment under the Scheduled Tribes Category, as he belongs to 'Meena' Caste and this fact is very much in the knowledge of the appointing authority at the time when he got the appointment. The petitioner was selected and appointed and in due course of time, he got two promotions. It is not the case of the respondents that any fraud or forgery has been committed by the petitioner in getting the employment. The only ground taken by the respondents is that the category 'Meena' is not notified in the State of U.P., therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the reservation in the 'Meena' category, however, the respondents have failed to show that there was bar that the candidates of another State under the SC/ST category were not entitled to the benefit of reservation.

In view of the above facts as well as the law as held by the Division Bench of this Court, the impugned order suffers from illegality and the same is liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.09.2019 passed by respondent no.2, contained at Annexure 13 to the petition is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of Deputy Controller with all consequential benefits.

Order Date :- 22.3.2021

VNP/-