Court No. - 14 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4813 of 1992 Petitioner :- Prahlad Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Director,Arayuvedic & Unani Services Petitioner Counsel :- A.K.Shukla,P.K.Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Shishir Kumar,J.
This is an application for recall of the order dated 16.12.2004. Cause shown in
the application is sufficient. The order dated 16.12.2004 is hereby recalled.
Order Date :- 10.5.2010
SKD
Hon’ble Shishir Kumar,J.
The writ petition is restored to its original number.
As parties are agreed, therefore, writ petition should be decided after hearing
learned counsel for parties.
It appears that petitioner along-with other persons were appointed as
temporary employee in the respondent-office. On 24.6.1992, services of
twelve persons along with petitioners were terminated on the ground that
being temporary employee, services of petitioner as well as other persons
working similarly are not required. Petitioner aggrieved by aforesaid order
filed a writ petition before this Court and writ petition was entertained and
this Court has passed an interim order in favour of petitioner. Petitioner
submits that in pursuance of the impugned order petitioner is working.
The case was listed on 16.12.2004 and it was dismissed considering the case
on merits.
Petitioner submits that all relevant persons whose services have been
terminated, have been considered subsequently but petitioner has been
discriminated and he has not been called for examination, therefore, action of
respondents is not correct.
In-spite of time granted, no counter affidavit has been filed. Now petitioner
submits that he is working on the basis of interim order, therefore, he may be
permitted to continue as other similarly situated persons are working.
I have considered the submission made on behalf of petitioner and perused the
record.
There is no dispute that appointment of petitioner was cancelled and his
services were terminated treating petitioner as temporary employee by order
dated 26.4.1992. As regards, submission made by petitioner that he has been
discriminated and has not been called, is not acceptable to the Court. It is not
the case of petitioner that other persons whose services have been terminated
treating them to be temporary has been considered and appointed without any
selection. It appears that on the basis of advertisement or names called from
Employment Exchange, regular selection was made and those persons
appeared in the selection, have been appointed. Claim of petitioner is that he
was not called for selection cannot be accepted in view of fact that in case
any selection was being made, on the basis of advertisement after constitution
of Selection Committee, it was the duty of petitioner to appear in the said
selection. If he has not appeared he cannot claim that he has been
discriminated. In the facts and circumstances of present case, as petitioner
submits that he has already submitted a representation, therefore, it is to be
considered.
In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of present case, this writ petition
is being disposed of finally directing relevant authority to consider claim of
petitioner on merits taking into facts and circumstances that petitioner is
working from 1992.
With these observations the writ petition is disposed of, however, without
imposing any cost.
Order Date :- 10.5.2010
SKD