Allahabad High Court
Sandeep And 12 Ors vs State Of U.P. Thru Principal Secry ... on 10 September, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:56387
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 1850 of 2005
Sandeep And 12 Ors
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru Principal Secry Medical/Health And 3 Ors
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
I H Farooqui, Alok Mishra, Santosh Kr. Yadav Warsi, Suman Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C S C
Court No. - 8
HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.
2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 09.02.2005 and the office order dated 10.02.2005 with further direction to opposite parties to permit petitioners to work on their respective posts and for payment of salary every month.
3. It has been submitted that petitioners were appointed on Class-IV posts in pursuance of an advertisement dated 21.01.2005 after following due process of interview and selection in pursuance thereof but on a complaint being made, the selection was cancelled. It is submitted that the dispute in question is squarely covered by judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No. 6304 of 2006, Smt. Rajesh versus State of U.P. and others.
4. Learned State Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit has sought to refute submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioners.
5. However, from a perusal of judgment and order dated 23.04.2025 passed in the case of Smt. Rajesh (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment,which is as follows:-
"1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
"I.Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned letter dated 9.2.2005 and the officer order dated 10.2.2005 contained in Annexure 1 and 1 A respectively to the writ petition, and also the letter dated 9.2.2005 from the Government referred to in the impugned letter (Annexure-1) after summoning the original from the opposite parties.
II. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Mahila Sweeper and to pay her salary every month in time accordingly. "
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.01.2005 an advertisement was issued under the direction of the Director General, Medical and Health, U.P., Lucknow for filling up Class-IV posts. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner applied for the post of Class-IV at District - Baghpat. Since there is no provision for conducting written examination, date for interview was scheduled on 05.02.2005. The petitioner appeared in interview and thereafter the list of successful candidates was pasted on the notice board on 07.02.2005 containing the name of the petitioner. On 09.02.2005 appointment letters were issued to the selected candidates indicating their place and post. When the selected candidates reported for their joining, but to their utter surprise, the authorities were orally informed them that in pursuance of the order dated 09.02.2005 issued by the Director (Administration), Medical and Health, the selection has been cancelled, which was issued in the light of the Government Order dated 09.02.2005. In the aforesaid Government Order, it is said that some complaints have been received in regard to the selection process, therefore, the same has been cancelled.
3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after following due procedure of selection, the petitioner was issued appointment letter on 09.02.2005, but the State Government issued a Government Order dated 09.02.2005 itself and a decision was taken to cancel the appointment on the basis that some complaints were received. He further submits that there is no specific allegation as to what complaints were made and only on undisclosed complaint, the aforesaid Government Order was issued cancelling the appointments. Learned counsel also submits that once the selection has been made after following the due procedure and the appointment letter was issued, it was not incumbent upon the State Government to issue such Government Order cancelling the appointment on the basis that some complaints were made against the said selection. He also submits that in terms of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner was allowed to work. Learned counsel also submits that the appointing authority in the present case is the Chief Medical Officer, who exercised his statutory power while issuing appointment letters. There is no illegality or infirmity in the selection procedure, therefore, the appointments cannot be cancelled abruptly in such a manner. It is further submitted that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioners prior to cancellation of appointments.
4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that on the basis of some complaints, the State Government issued the Government Order dated 09.02.2005 cancelling the appointments, therefore, there is no need to interfere in the impugned orders.
5. Heard Sri Alok Mishra,learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
6. After going through the record, what transpires is that the appointment letters were issued after completing the due procedure of law. Whatever complaint if was before the State Government, that could have been subjected to for enquiry, but issuing the Government Order for cancelling the appointment letters on the date when the petitioner was selected, is bad in law and is not sustainable. The other relevant factor that has to be considered, is that till date nothing has come on record as to what was the complaint or what was the seriousness in the matter where the State Government came to the conclusion that appointments were based on some extraneous consideration. The petitioners are working on Class-IV post since twenty years in terms of the interim order passed by this Court. Therefore, the impugned Government Order and the consequent orders issued cannot be sustained in law and are liable to be quashed.
7. Writ petition is accordingly allowed and a Writ in the nature of Certiorari is issued quashing the impugned Government Order dated 09.02.2005 as well as impugned order dated 9.2.2005 and 10.2.2005 contained as Annexure No.1 an 1-A to the writ petition. Consequences will follow. "
6. In view thereof, the impugned orders dated 09.02.2005 and 10.02.2005 are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari. Consequences to follow.
7. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost.
(Manish Mathur,J.)
September 10, 2025
Satish
