Court No. - 23 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 6576 of 2009 Petitioner :- Surendra Pratap Singh S/O Lallan Singh & Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Housing & Urban Pllaning & Or Petitioner Counsel :- S.P. Singh,Prashant Kumar,Shubhra Kumar Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Shabihul Hasnain,J.
Heard Mr. S.K. Kalia, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Prashant Kumar.
An affidavit was required to be filed by the Principal Secretary himself by the
order of the court. In compliance of the same an affidavit has been filed by
Mr. Anant Kumar Sinha, Principal Secretary, Housing & Urban Planning
Department, Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat. Along with this counter
affidavit Annexure no. 1 has been attached which is a report submitted by a
committee constituted by a Government Order dated 21.11.2009. On page 6
of this report there is a heading shown as ‘Niskarsh’.
It is so strange that the Principal Secretary of a department in his personal
affidavit is stating that he or the committee has been able to obtain an
information from the 24 development authorities only whereas admittedly
there are 31 development authorities functioning under him. The figure of 31
development authorities has been just now confirmed in the court on the basis
of instructions given by the Review Officer Mr. Ashok Kumar. It is all the
more interesting that the report says that the present figure which they are
disclosing in this report is also based on unauthenticated evidence and
unreliable sources. It is a strange report and the court wonders about the
audacity shown by the committee as well as by the Principal Secretary to
prefer such a report before the High Court. To submit a report before the court
saying that this is based on implausible sources and on unauthenticated
documents and evidence, per se constitutes, a contempt of the court. If the
court is taken so lightly by the highest officials of the State that they can file
such a report on affidavit then the court will be a worried institution.
On the last occasion the court had directed the Principal Secretary to file an
affidavit. It was expected that the matter after coming to the knowledge of the
highest authority, truth will prevail and the correct picture will emerge. When
the Principal Secretary, himself admits that the compilation is not based on
reliable sources then any further calculation can not be relied upon by this
court.
The court further observes with discomfort that the establishment section has
not been able to give the original file on which the notings were made on the
basis of which calculation are to be made. It has further been said that the
development authorities have also not been able to produce the correct figure
of the posts and in the end the committee has shown its helplessness saying
that only the option left with the committee is to calculate the total sanctioned
posts on the basis of other documents.
-2-
The court takes a serious view of the matter specially by the fact that the
affidavit has been filed by none other than the Principal Secretary.
The objection raised by the learned Senior Advocate that now the figure of 33
has been reached by the opposite parties on which the promotion of reserved
category candidates have been made, if the quota of promotion is only 81 as
per this committee’s report on page 7. The court can give interpretation to the
laws but the calculation, sanction or creation of the posts etc. definitely lies in
the domain of the executive. Of course this exercise of the executive is open
to judicial review.
Accordingly this court directs for a further personal affidavit of the Principal
Secretary to be filed providing information regarding rest of the
developmental authorities who have not provided information to the
committee / the Principal Secretary and to further give the bifurcation of how
many general category candidates are working in direct quota and how many
reserved category candidates are working in direct quota simultaneously in
civil category.
List this case on 10.2.2009.
The court has passed this order with a great anxiety because of the reasons
aforesaid and expects that the Principal Secretary will file an affidavit this
time with due care and caution and after personally verifying each fact and
not come up with such averments which have been made in the Annexure of
his affidavit.
The learned Standing Counsel shall produce the record once more before this
court.
Copy of the order may be provided to the learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel by tomorrow.
Order Date :- 19.1.2010
Om.