Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/19/2023 on 6 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 19 OF 2023
06TH APRIL, 2023
BETWEEN:
Nitin Pradhan & another .....Appellants.
And
State of Uttarakhand & others ....Respondents.
Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. Xitij Kaushik, learned
counsel.
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy
Advocate General.
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned counsel.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)
The present appeal is directed against the order
dated 12.12.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge, in
Writ Petition (S/S) No.2293 of 2022.
2. By the impugned order, the writ petition preferred
by the appellants has been dismissed. The appellants had
preferred the said writ petition to assail the order dated
25.11.2022, passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
Uttarakhand, annulling the resolution passed by the Board of
Directors of the respondent-Bank on 05.09.2022.
3. The respondent-Bank had employed the appellants
through an outsourcing agency to serve in the said Bank.
Thereafter, the respondent-Bank undertook the recruitment
process to fill-up Group-D posts, against which the appellants
were working. There were 76 sanctioned Group-D posts in the
respondent-Bank. After the recruitment process was
undertaken, 39 persons, including the appellants, who were
serving through the outsourcing agency in the said posts,
were found to be in excess, since 57 of the regularly recruited
persons had joined their services. The Board of Directors of
the respondent-Bank had passed a resolution to continue with
the appellants and others serving in Group-D posts on
05.09.2022. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
Uttarakhand, however, annulled this resolution on
25.11.2022, which was assailed by the appellants in the writ
petition.
4. The learned Single Judge has held that since the
appellants were in excess of the number of sanctioned posts,
and the posts had been filled up through regularly recruited
persons, they did not have a right to continue in the said
Group-D posts. Consequently, the writ petition was
dismissed.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants,
and so far as the impugned order is concerned, we are of the
view that there is no reason for us to interfere with the same.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
recruitment process undertaken by the respondent-Bank,
which resulted in recruitment of 57 regularly appointed
persons, was marred by irregularities. He submits that a Two
Member Committee was constituted to inquire into the
irregularities. However, the report of the said Committee has
not been made public. He further submits that if the
recruitment process undertaken by the respondent-Bank is
found to be illegal, and the appointments made thereunder
are recalled, the appellants would have a right to stake claim
to continue to be engaged through the outsourcing agency.
He further submits that the appellants had been serving in
the respondent-Bank for about 10 years, when they removed
in December, 2022.
7. We dispose of this appeal with a direction to
respondent no.1 to expedite the inquiry into the recruitment
process in question, within three months. The inquiry report,
once completed, should be shared with the appellants, so that
they may avail of their remedies, if any.
8. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
9. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)
(ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.)
Dated: 06th April, 2023
NISHANT
