Allahabad High Court
Pradeep Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru Principal ... on 10 August, 2023
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:53345
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2177 of 2012
Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Principal Secretary Revenue Deptt And Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ganga Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant petition has been filed with the prayer of mandamus for commanding the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for providing appointment on the vacant regular Class-IV post in the department with effect from the date juniors to the petitioner have been given regular appointment along with other reliefs that have been prayed for.
3. It is the specific case of the petitioner as set forth in the writ petition that while the petitioner was working under the respondents on temporary basis, a list was prepared for such employees who were having experience. In the said list, the name of the petitioner finds place at Serial No.5 in the list of 12 persons, a copy of which is annexure no.1 to the petition. It has been alleged that subsequent thereto, the respondents have proceeded to appoint persons on a pick and choose basis on regular Class-IV post ignoring the name of the petitioner whose name finds place much above those who have been appointed, hence, the writ petition.
4. A counter affidavit has already been filed by the respondents denying the allegations as levelled by the petitioner.
5. This Court in order to sort out the controversy, vide order dated 13.04.2022, had required the respondents to produce the records.
6. When the records were produced on 04.08.2023, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite the name of Shri Ganga Singh being indicated from the side of the petitioner. As the records were available, the Court has itself perused the records and has passed the following order:
"Case called out.
None appears for the petitioner.
This Court vide the order dated 13.04.2023 had summoned the records which have been produced today by learned Standing Counsel.
The case of the petitioner as emerges from the order of this Court dated 13.04.2023 is that a person junior to the petitioner has been appointed on the Class IV post in tehsil whereas the petitioner who is at serial no. 5 of the list has been left out. It is also contended that the pleadings in the counter affidavit that applications were invited and selection process was conducted, is false.
Considering the aforesaid, this Court had summoned the records.
The records have been perused by the Court from which it emerges that an advertisement dated 21.11.1996 was issued in the newspaper Dainik Chakravarti per which the last date fixed for receipt of applications was 03.12.1996. It is contended that 600 applications were received of which 35 persons have been selected as per the select list.
Learned Standing Counsel states that as the petitioner failed to apply to the said advertisement, there is no question of appointing him.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record what emerges is that after issuance of advertisement as aforesaid, various applications have been received of which 35 persons have been selected. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner failed to apply in pursuance to the said advertisement and in case of he not being selected, he is to blame.
However, as learned counsel for the petitioner is not present, list this case on 10.08.2023 at 02:15 PM for further hearing.
As the records have been perused and returned back to the respondents, the same shall not be produced unless called for."
7. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued and insisted that despite the Court having seen the records yet the respondents are required to file a supplementary counter affidavit bringing on record the alleged advertisement.
8. The Court is of the view that when the records have already been perused by the Court on 04.08.2023 and the learned counsel for the petitioner was also not present on the said date as such, the respondents cannot be directed to file a supplementary counter affidavit.
9. Moreover, after perusal of records by the Court, it has been found that an advertisement dated 21.11.1996 was issued in the newspaper "Dainik Chakravarti" per which the last date fixed for receipt of applications was 03.12.1996. Approximately 600 persons had applied for in pursuance to the advertisement and 35 persons were selected as per the select list. The petitioner, as per the averments made in the writ petition itself, has failed to apply in pursuance to the advertisement and consequently no error can be found on the part of respondents having proceeded to select 35 persons amongst those who had applied for the said post.
10. Needless to mention when the petitioner failed to apply in pursuance to the said advertisement, consequently, in case the respondents have appointed some persons, the same cannot be a source of grievance for the petitioner. Moreover as the records were perused by this Court, this Court does not find it necessary to call upon the respondents to find a supplementary counter affidavit, as prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
11. As this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that contrary statements have been made in the counter affidavit and thus filing of the supplementary counter affidavit is required.
12. Again this Court is of the view that once the Court has already gone through the records then merely because some contrary statements are made in the counter affidavit, the same cannot be said to be a ground to require the respondents to file a supplementary counter affidavit and accordingly the said prayer is rejected.
13. In this regard, it would be apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court pased in the case of Union of India Vs. Shiv Raj and Another 2014 (6) SCC 564 wherein it has been held as under:
"In a case where on the basis of submissions advanced in the Court on behalf of the parties, the Court summoned the original records to find out the truth, pleadings remain insignificant."
14. When the instant case is seen in the light of judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Shiv Raj (supra), it emerges that when the Court itself has gone through the records, consequently the pleadings would not be significant.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussions, no case is made out. The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.8.2023
S. Shivhare
