1
Court No. 24
C. M. Application No.78828 of 2009
C. M. Application No.26381 of 2009
in re:
Writ Petition No. 5548 (SS) of 1995
Vinod Kumar ... Petitioner
Versus
State of U. P. and others ... Opposite parties
----------
Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner.
Cause shown is sufficient.
Accordingly, both the applications are allowed and the
orders dated 17.2.2009 and 21.7.2009 are hereby recalled. The
writ petition is restored to its original number.
Brief facts of the petitioner’s case are that the petitioner has
been engaged on the post of Pashu Dresser vide order dated
23.3.1990 in the pay scale of Rs.750-12-870-EB-940 on a purely
temporary post in the stopgap arrangement. Thereafter, regular
selection for making appointment on category IV post has been
initiated and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner, who was
working on the post of Pashu Dresser, was also participated. On
the basis of the Selection Committee recommendations, he was
placed at Sl. No. 34 in the merit list so prepared for category IV
post. Subsequently, the petitioner was offered an appointment
vide order dated 5.5.1990 on category IV post for which regular
selection was made, but he was not satisfied with the pay scale
which is being paid to him. Being aggrieved, he moved several
representations, which were not considered by the authorities
concerned and as such, the instant writ petition has been filed
inter alia on the ground that the petitioner has been appointed as
Pashu Dresser on a substantive vacancy, therefore, he may be
given the pay scale attached to the post of Pashu Dresser.
On perusal of the record, it reflects that the petitioner was
2
initially engaged for a period of two months on the post of Pashu
Dresser and thereafter, he has participated in the regular
selection, which has been made for category IV category in the
department and on the basis of the recommendations of the
Selection Committee, he was placed at Sl. No. 34 of the merit list.
Accordingly, he was offered appointment on the post in question
which he joins in pursuance of the fresh appointment order and
was also paid salary for the post on which he was appointed.
Subsequently, it was not open to him to agitate and prays for
placing in the pay scale for the post of Pashu Dresser. Thus, the
relief for a direction to the opposite parties for giving an
appointment on the post of Pashu Dresser to the petitioner cannot
be issued.
The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly
dismissed.
Dt.21.1.2010
Lakshman/