Allahabad High Court
Hari Prasad vs State Of U.P Thru Secy Food And ... on 30 January, 2023
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 20
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 33818 of 2018
Petitioner :- Hari Prasad
Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru Secy Food And Civil Supplies And Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
By the present petition, the petitioner has made the following reliefs:-
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 10.09.2018 which contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to reconsider and appoint the petitioner in Class III posts."
The petitioner had earlier filed petition being Service Single No.3682 (S/S) of 2012 for regularization of his services. In the said writ petition the petitioner had also taken specific stand that the case of the petitioner is at par with the case of Ajay Pal Singh and Ashish Kumar Tiwari. The Court passed a detailed judgment on 2.4.2018 in the said case holding that it is evident that the nature of appointment of the petitioner is similar to the appointment of Sri Ajay Pal Singh and Sri Ashish Kumar Tiwari and thereafter, by giving a detailed reason, the impugned order was quashed and further direction was issued to consider the case. Thereafter, this impugned order dated 10.9.2018 has been passed in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 2.4.2018 (supra). The operative portion of the judgment dated 2.4.2018 is quoted below:-
"I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
In regard to the first submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on perusal of the order of appointment issued in favour of the petitioner on 12.04.1985 and the certificate issued by the respondents on 02.02.1987, it is evident that the nature of appointment of the petitioner is similar to the appointment of Sri Ajay Pal Singh and Sri Ashish Kumar Tiwari, as recorded in the impugned order.
The respondents, while passing the impugned order has nowhere considered that why the circular of the year 1982 is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner has only been rejected on the ground that his case is not covered under the circular issued in the year 1982 and his case is not similar to the case of Sri Ajay Pal Singh and Sri Ashish Kumar Tiwari. Thus, finding recorded by the respondent no. 2 in passing the impugned order and the argument advanced by the learned Standing Counsel in support of the impugned order has no substance in law.
In view of the above, the impugned order dated 07.05.2012 is hereby set aside."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is passed in a most arbitrary and illegal manner by the authority and he has again reiterated the earlier impugned order which was quashed by this Court and again the case of the petitioner has been differentiated on same footings and it has been found by the authority that the case of the petitioner is not at par with the case of Ajay Pal Singh and Ashish Kumar Tiwari. It has been submitted that once the Court has given specific finding and held that the case of the petitioner is at par with the case of Ajay Pal Singh and Ashish Kumar Tiwari, the O.P. No.2 cannot pass the order touching the merit of the case and he cannot become appellate authority against the order passed by the High Court.
On the other hand, Ms. Pratiti learned standing counsel for the State has submitted that the case of the petitioner is not at par with Ajay Pal Singh and Ashish Kumar Tiwari, therefore, the authority has not found fit the case of the petitioner for regularization and the impugned order has been passed.
It is settled law that administrative authority cannot be appellate authority over the orders passed by the High Court or any Court. In the present case, the Coordinate Bench has given a detailed judgment finding is recorded that the case of the petitioner is at par with the case of Ajay Pal Singh and Ashish Kumar Tiwari, therefore, the case of the petitioner was liable to be considered in view of the finding recorded by the Court. In my opinion the impugned order cannot survive in the eyes of law.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.9.2018 is quashed. The authority concerned will take a fresh decision ignoring the impugned order. He will consider the case strictly in the light of the observations made in the present case as well as the judgment and order dated 2.4.2018 passed in Service Single No.3682 (S/S) of 2012. The order will be passed within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 30.1.2023
Rajneesh JR-PS)
