Court No. - 26 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 31331 of 2003 Petitioner :- Om Prakash Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- M.D. Mishra Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar,R.S.Misra Hon'ble Shishir Kumar,J.
Heard Sri M.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Arun Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order impugned
dated 28.6.2003 passed by respondent no.2, Annexure-2 to the writ
petition. It appears that the petitioner was appointed on 21.1.1990
as a Class-IV employee in the institution on a non-sanctioned post
in a non-aided institution in the Science Department. The claim set
up by the petitioner in the present writ ptition was that petitioner
was working and he was having a legitimate expectation that his
services will be regularised on a substantive vacancy in future.
One Sri Surendra Prasad Mani retired on 30.6.1998 and on that
post another person was appointed and his services have already
been regularized. The petitioner made a representation to that
effect but it was not decided, then he filed a writ petition before
this Court and this Court decided the writ petition and directed the
authority concerned to decide the representation-vide its order
dated 8.2.1999.
It appears that on the basis of the directions issued by this Court
the relevant authority has recorded a finding that the appointment
of the petitioner was on a non-sanctioned post and from the record
of the institution, it appears that he was ever appointed on a
sanctionedpost. In such a situation the District Inspector of
Shcools has recorded a finding that as no prior approval for
making an appointment was ever sought by the institution and if
any appointment has been made on a non-sanctioned post without
following the proper procedure, no consideration can be made for
considering his appointment either as valid or invalid.
Sri M.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
a similar circumstance another person has been given appointment
and his services have been regularised, therefore, the petitioner is
also entitled for the same relief.
On the other hand, Sri Arun Kumr, learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that appointment of Sri Chhangur Prasad
Sharma was made on a clear vacancy in 1998 after following the
proper procedure, therefore, his appointment has been approved
and now he has been regularised. Therefore, the petitioner cannot
claim any pairty or similarity with the appointment of Sri
Chhangur Prasad Sharma.
I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner
and the respondents. Once a finding has been recorded by the
relevant authority that appointment of the petitioner was made on a
non-sanctioned post and there was no prior approval as provided in
the rules, a person cannot claim that he may be considered for
regularization on a particular post for which sanction or approval
has never been granted to that appointment.
As regards the regularization of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.
2496 of 2000, in my opinion, his claim is not similar to the
petitioner, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in
view of the fact of the finding recorded that his appointment was
not proper and was not in accordance with law.
The writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. It is however
open to the petitioner to approach the relevant authority if he is
having any grievance.
No order is passed as to costs.
Order Date :- 21.1.2010
V.Sri/-