Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 33 of 2010 Petitioner :- Greesh Chandra S/O Indrajeet ( S/S 7894/2009 ) Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Education & Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, Smt. Seema Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C., D.R. Misra Hon'ble Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, Chief Justice Hon'ble Yogendra Kumar Sangal, J.
Writ petitioner – appellant, aggrieved by order dated
27.11.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 7894 (S/S)
of 2009, has preferred this appeal under Rule 5
Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules,
1952.
Writ petitioner – appellant (hereinafter referred to as
the ‘appellant’) was engaged as a Motivator in a
scheme sponsored by the Central Government on an
honorarium of Rs. 200/- per month. He filed a
representation along with other persons claiming
regularisation in service, inter alia, on the ground
that employees of certain categories engaged under
the said scheme, in which he was engaged, have
been absorbed and, therefore, he has right to be
absorbed. Respondent no.2 rejected the said
representation by order dated 01.01.2009. The
appellant filed the writ petition challenging the
same, which has been dismissed by the impugned
order.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, appearing on behalf
of the appellant, submits that when other
employees of the scheme have been absorbed in
service, there is no justification to deny the benefit
of absorption to the appellant and the action of the
respondents in not absorbing him is in teeth of the
right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
We do not find any substance in the submission of
Mr. Srivastava. Undisputedly, the appellant was
engaged under a scheme. A person appointed under
a scheme has no right to be absorbed. It is not the
case of the appellant that the employees of the
category to which he belongs have been absorbed.
In that view of the matter, the complaint of the
appellant of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India is absolutely misconceived.
We are of the opinion that consideration of the
matter by the learned Single Judge does not suffer
from any error calling for interference in this
appeal.
We do not find any merit in the appeal and it is
accordingly dismissed.
(C.K. Prasad, C.J.)
(Y.K. Sangal, J.)
Order Date :- 21.1.2010
AHA