Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/233/2022 on 11 April, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
11.04.2023 SPA No. 233 of 2022
Hon'ble Vipin Sanghi, C.J.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Mr. Mukesh Kapruwan, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Brief Holder for the
State of Uttarakhand/ respondents.
The present Special Appeal is directed against
the judgment dated 24.03.2021, rendered by the
learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 14 of
2006, titled "Raghuvir Singh Bist v. The Joint Director
of Education and Others. The learned Single Judge has
dismissed the said Writ Petition, wherein the writ
petitioner-appellant had assailed the order dated
09.12.2005 passed by respondent no. 2, cancelling his
appointment on a Class-IV post.
The appellant was initially appointed for 89 days
on 24/31.07.1998, as a Peon, as a stop gap
arrangement. His services were dispensed with after
the expiry of the said period. Subsequently, he was
appointed on the same post on 25.01.1999. The
appointment was stated to be temporary in nature,
which was to continue till a regularly selected candidate
joins. On 01.11.1999, the appellant's appointment was
cancelled. He assailed the same by filing Writ Petition
No. 12624 of 2000 before the Allahabad High Court, in
which interim protection was granted to the appellant
on 16.03.2000. He continued to serve under the
protection of the Court's order, till the said Writ Petition
was finally decided on 30.08.2005. The Court quashed
the cancellation of the appellant's appointment, on the
ground of non-compliance of principles of natural
justice. Consequently, the appellant was permitted to
continue to serve with the respondents. Thereafter,
two notices were issued to the appellant on 17.11.2005
and 05.12.2005, requiring him to disclose, as to how
he was appointed to the said post of Peon. The
appellant was heard, and it transpired that he had been
appointed irregularly, i.e. through the backdoor,
without there being any advertisement, or interview.
Consequently, his appointment was cancelled on
09.12.2005.
The case of the appellant, in the Writ Petition,
was that, since the cancellation of his appointment had
already been quashed on 30.08.2005, he could not
have been removed by cancelling his appointment on
09.12.2005, after giving him a show-cause notice. It
was also argued that, while rendering the judgment
dated 30.08.2005, the right of the respondents to issue
a show-cause notice was not reserved. It was argued
that the order dated 30.08.2005 had attained finality.
All these submissions have been considered by
the learned Single Judge, and rejected.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued
before this Court on the same lines. He further
submits that the appellant is a handicapped person.
We have perused the impugned judgment and
considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
appellant, and do not find any merit in the same.
The order dated 30.08.2005 was passed by the
Allahabad High Court, whereby the cancellation of the
appointment of the appellant was quashed only on the
ground of non-compliance of principles of natural
justice. That did not mean that the right of the
respondents, to proceed in accordance with law, was
taken away. The respondents, having become wiser
after the passing of the order dated 30.08.2005, gave
an opportunity to the petitioner to explain as to how,
he came to be appointed in the first place. It
transpired that the petitioner had not applied in
response to any public advertisement. No public
process for recruitment had been undertaken, wherein
the petitioner had participated. He was appointed
through the backdoor, and, therefore, had no right to
continue in service. The appellant could also not have
taken advantage of the fact that he continued to serve
between 16.03.2000 and 30.08.2005, since this service
was rendered by him under the protection of the
Court's order. Merely because the appellant is a
handicapped person, the position in law does not
change. Such backdoor entries have been frowned
upon by the Supreme Court, including in the case of
Secretary, State of Karnataka & others v. Uma
Devi and others, 2006 (4) SCC 1.
For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in
this Special Appeal. The same is, accordingly,
dismissed.
Since, we have dismissed this Special Appeal on
merits, we are not inclined to go into the aspect of
delay.
Consequently, pending application(s), if any, also
stand disposed of.
(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) (Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)
11.04.2023 11.04.2023
Rahul
