Allahabad High Court
Sushil Kumar vs State Of U.P.And Others on 21 August, 2023
Bench: Kshitij Shailendra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:168680
Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17695 of 2000
Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Khare,Arvind Pandey,Rajiv Lochan Pandey,Siddharth Khare,Virendra Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
1. In compliance of the earlier order of this Court dated 14.7.2023, instructions are received in Court today. The same are taken on record.
2. Heard Shri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ankit Gaur, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on probation by letter of appointment dated 9.6.1999 on the post of Assistant Accountant after following due procedure of law. However, before the period of probation was over immediately after six months from his appointment, services of the petitioner were terminated vide impugned order dated 21.3.2000 on the ground that the services of the petitioner being temporary in nature are not required.
4. It is contended that an interim order was passed in the present case on 13.4.2000 staying the effect and operation of the termination order with a direction that petitioner shall continue in service and shall be paid his salary. He submits that the petitioner continued to work and in the meantime, the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 8.12.2017, but despite its restoration on 10.8.2022, the salary was paid upto December, 2020 and no salary had been paid since January, 2021. He further submits that termination order was stayed and, therefore, termination order may be set aside and a direction may be issued for making payment of all consequential financial benefits including other service benefits.
5. Learned Standing Counsel, by referring to the counter affidavit, has drawn the attention of this Court towards the select list dated 17.3.1999 in which seven persons were shown to have been selected. The last selected candidate was one Kanhaiya Lal and, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, he was placed at Serial No.1 of the waiting-list. He further argued that the appointment of the petitioner clearly indicates that he was at Sl.No.1 in the waiting-list and, therefore, his appointment is in that capacity.
6. Learned Standing Counsel further argued that the petitioner was appointed in place of Kanhaiya Lal, who had filed a Writ Petition No.38246 of 1999 (Kanhaiya Lal vs. The State of UP and others), which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 17.1.2000 and following direction was issued in its operative portion:
"This petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent No.3 to issue appointment letter to the petitioner in pursuance of the slelect list dated 17.3.1999 within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.
There shall be no order as to costs."
7. It is, therefore, contended that the mandamus issued by the Writ Court in aforesaid writ petition, was complied with by the respondents and when the appointment letter was issued to Kanhaiya Lal, the services of the petitioner were terminated, simultaneously.
8. The aforesaid factual position has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner, however, the stand is reiterated to the effect that once appointment on probation was offerred and the petitioner continued to work for various decades, his services cannot be interfered with while finally deciding the writ petition.
9. Shri Virendra Singh has, however, placed strong reliance upon the judgment in Sanjeev Kumar vs. State of UP, (1999) 1 UPLBEC 575 and argued that even if the services are of temporary nature, but the termination from the service of the petitioner is in violation of principles of natural justice, such orders are unsustainable.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, there being no dispute that petitioner was included in the waiting-list, his right is subservient to the right of main selectees and once the petition of Kanhaiya Lal was allowed and appointment letter to him was issued in pursuance of the mandamus issued by this Court, the petitioner would have no case for continuance on a post, which has already been filled up by Kanhaiya Lal. Even pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, if the petitioner has been allowed to continue on a post other than the posts occupied by Kanhaiya Lal, the said arrangement cannot be allowed to continue.
11. The writ petition has no force and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.8.2023
LN Tripathi
