Allahabad High Court
Mohan Singh (In Wria 16307 Of 2016) vs U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam ... on 10 June, 2022
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 2
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 303 of 2022
Appellant :- Mohan Singh (In Wria 16307 Of 2016)
Respondent :- U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd.Thru. Managing Director, Lucknow And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Dinesh Chandra Tewari
Counsel for Respondent :- Shishir Jain
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
Heard Sri D.C. Tewari, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel for the respondents.
The appellant had filed Writ Petition No.16307 of 2016 challenging the order dated 02.07.2016 passed by the Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited, Lucknow whereby the petitioner's representation dated 04.05.2016 claiming appointment/ promotion on the post of Assistant Accountant seeking parity with Sri Khwaja Irfan Shah, Mohd. Arif Siddiqui and Sri Devdutt Sharma etc.
In the order dated 02.07.2016, the Managing Director has recorded that the petitioner (appellant hereto) had been appointed on temporary post of Assistant Grade-II in furtherance of selection held in the year 2003 and he joined in furtherance of the aforesaid selection on 28.06.2003. Sri Khwaja Irfan Shah, Mohd. Arif Siddiqui and Sri Devdutt Sharma were working in the Corporation since before on muster-roll and in furtherance of an application submitted by them regarding correction of error in their designation, their designation was corrected so as to make it Assistant Accountant (Muster Roll). In the 87th meeting of Board of Directors of U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited held on 25.10.1994, a decision was taken for regularization of persons working on ad-hoc/ daily wages/ muster roll basis and in furtherance of the said decision, the aforesaid three persons were selected by the Departmental Selection Committee for regularization on the post of Assistant Accountant and accordingly, they were regularized on the said post. From this, it is clear that the case of the petitioner and the aforesaid three persons is not similar and there was no provision in the Service Rules of the Corporation for promotion from the post of Assistant Grade-II to the post of Assistant Accountant; accordingly, the petitioner's representation was rejected.
The appellant challenged the order of rejection of his representation by filing Writ Petition No.16307 (S/S) of 2016, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 06.05.2022 stating that in spite of trying to convince the Court from his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant could not assail the finding in the order under challenge that there is no promotional avenue in the relevant Rules or orders applicable for promotion from the post of Assistant Grade-II to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer and the petitioner (appellant hereto) could also not unsettle the finding that his case is similar to the aforesaid three persons.
After examining the record, we find ourselves in agreement with the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge for dismissal of the writ petition and we find no reason to interfere with the same.
The special appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Before parting with the case, we must observe that ground-L taken in the memo of appeal is as follows in the affidavit filed in support of stay application. Ground-L taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is as under:-
"Because, dismissal of writ petition is a consequences of false statement given by the respondents counsel, regarding the present controversy nothing has been discussed in the aforesaid resolution dated 24.10.1994 in any manner."
Having gone through the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, we find that no statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents has been recorded by the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge has proceeded to decide the writ petition on the basis of facts that were apparent from the record. When confronted as to how this allegation has been levelled against the learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the appellant could not substantiate this ground and the allegation and he expresses his sorrow.
We deprecate this reckless allegation made against the learned counsel appearing for the other side. The professional propriety demands that the counsels should draft the pleadings and the grounds carefully so as to not make any reckless allegation against their brother colleagues. We hope that learned counsel for the appellant will be more careful in future and unpleasant thing should not record.
[Subhash Vidyarthi,J.] [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
Order Date :- 10.6.2022
RBS/-
