Court No. - 11 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 1863 of 2010 Petitioner :- Subash Chand S/O Sohan Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secretary Basic Education Petitioner Counsel :- G.K. Pandey,N.K. Mishra Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,A.M. Tripathi Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.
Heard Sri G.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manjeet Shukla
learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties no. 1 and 3 and Sri A.M.
Tripathi , learned Counsel for opposite parties no.2 and 4.
By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged Clause -1 of
the Government Order dated 29.6.2002 passed by opposite party no.1 as
contained in anneuxre no.1 to the writ petition and also an advertisement
dated 27.1.2010 issued by opposite party no.4 in pursuance of the
Government Order dated 29.6.2002.
It is relevant to mention here that Government Order dated 29.6.2002 was
challenged in Writ Petition No. 1084 (S/S) of 2010, Sri Kirshnapal Singh Vs.
State of U.P. and others, the same was dismissed by order dated 25.2.2010
with the following orders:-
“Relief sought in the present writ petition is that regarding quashing of the
Government Order dated 29.6.2002.
Petitioners were appointed in 2002 as Coordinator in view of Government
Order dated 29.6.2002. Now by letter dated 19.11.2009, competent authority
has issued a direction that in view of Government Order mentioned above,
fresh selection may be held on the post of Coordinator after following proper
procedure as provided under Government Order. Petitioners are aggrieved
by the said order that they may be permitted to continue.
Admittedly, appointment/engagement of petitioners are for a period of two
years in pursuance of Government Order. It has further been provided in the
said Government Order that once a person has been engaged /appointed on
the post of Coordinator, in the next selection he will not be considered as
period of engagement is only for a period of two years. Now petitioners
cannot raise any grievance to this effect.
The writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed, however,
without imposing any cost.”
Aggrieved by the order dated 25.2.2010 , Sri Krishna Pal Singh filed Special
Appeal no. 164 of 2010 ( Krishna Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) ,
the same was dismissed by order dated 23.3.2010 which is reproduced as
“Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants
learned Standing counsel.
The appellants/petitioners were appointed under the Government Order
dated 29.6.2002, which required continuation for a period of two years and
now they could not turn around and say that they may be allowed on the basis
of the same sort of arrangement by the District Authority upto 2010. Learned
counsel appearing for the appellants/petitioners has contended that several
orders have been passed by the learned Single Judge on numerous occasions
and only interim protection was granted in favour of the
We do not find any logic in the submission of the appellants/petitioners nor
any question of parity requires order for determination by the Division Bench
only on the basis of any interim protection granted in favour of the
appellants/petitioners in their individual case.
The order passed by the learned Single Judge on 25.2.2010 is perfect in
nature and not requires any interference by the Division Bench of this Court
in the form of special appeal.
Accordingly, special appeal filed by the appellant stands dismissed.”
In view of above said fact the controversy which is involved in the present
writ petition arising out of the Government Order dated 29.6.2002 has already
been settled and concluded by the Division Bench decision dated 23.3.2010
passed in Special Appeal no. 164 of 2010.
For the forgoing reasons, the present writ petition lacks merits and is