Allahabad High Court
Union Of India And 2 Others vs Mahesh Chand Yadav on 9 November, 2022
Bench: Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Rajendra Kumar-Iv
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17646 of 2022
Petitioner :- Union Of India And 2 Others
Respondent :- Mahesh Chand Yadav
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ved Mani Tiwari,Sr. Advocate
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Heard Sri Ved Mani Tiwari, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Samir Srivastava holding brief of Sri Nikhi Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent.
The controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment dated 20.10.2022, passed by this Court in WRIT - A No. - 17101 of 2022 (Union Of India and 2 Others Vs. Shiv Nath Goswami), which is reproduced below :
"Heard Sri Ved Mani Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners/Union of India and Sri Nikhil Pandey, learned counsel for respondent, who has put in appearance today.
This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the order dated 11.5.2022 in O.A. No. 723 of 2015 (Shiv Nath Goswami vs. Union of India & 2 others) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad whereby the order dated 29.4.2015 rejecting the representation of the petitioner and upholding the order of reversion to the post of Mazdoor with effect from 29.6.1984 has been set aside.
Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that the respondent was appointed as Mazdoor in the organization of the petitioners on 2.11.1981. On 29.6.1984 the respondent was appointed on the post of Sawyer, after following due process of law. By order dated 29.4.2015 the petitioners reverted the respondent to the post Mazdoor from the post of Sawyer with effect of 29.6.1984 and also rejected his representation on the ground that essential qualification, as set out in the Recruitment Rules, was not fulfilled by the respondent at the time when he was appointed on the post of Sawyer on 29.6.1984.
Relevant Rule of recruitment has been reproduced in paragraph 6 of the impugned order and we find that the respondent was appointed on the post of Sawyer on 29.6.1984 on account of his eligibility of experience. The respondent had worked as Mazdoor in the organization of the petitioners since 2.11.1981. The relevant Rules of Recruitment do not provide three years experience of actual work in the Trade. It merely provides for experience. The respondent was appointed on the post of Sawyer, after following due process of law, therefore, neither the appointment of the respondent suffered from any infirmity nor his reversion to the post of Mazdoor can be permitted after he worked for more than 31 years. Thus, the impugned order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any manifest error of law.
For all the reasons aforestated, we do not find any merit in this petition. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed."
The aforesaid Writ Petition No.17101 of 2022 arose from the impugned common judgment, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in O.A. No.723 of 2015. The present writ petition also arise from the aforesaid common order of the Tribunal passed in leading O.A. No.723 of 2020.
Both the learned counsels for the parties jointly state that controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the aforequoted judgment and order dated 20.10.2022, passed by this Court in WRIT - A No. - 17101 of 2022.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed in terms of the aforequoted judgment dated 20.10.2022 in WRIT - A No. - 17101 of 2022.
Order Date :- 9.11.2022/vkg
