# Anilesh Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 2 ILRA 293
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-05-02
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 223 of 1999
- **Bench:** Tarun Chatterjee, C.J. R.K. Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anilesh-pratap-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40066
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Sri Ran Vijay Singh
S.C.

U.P.
Secondary
Education
Service
Commission
(Removal
of
Difficulties
order) 1981 Para 5- Adhoc appointment
on direct recruitment post- permanent
Principal retired on 30.6.91- vacancy
advertised by the Management on 4.7.91
in only one News Paper- appointment
made on 4.8.91- whether such appointee
is entitled for salary ? held "No".

U.P.
Secondary
Education
Service
Commission
(Removal
of
Difficulties
order 1981) - adhoc appointment by
direct recruitment post- whether the
provisions for appointment only after
expiry of the period of two months from
the date of advertisement the 4 vacancy
is mandatory on obligatory.

Held- Para 16

Applying the principles laid down in the
aforementioned cases, we are of the
considered opinion that the provisions of
section 18 of the 1982 Act is mandatory
and unless and until the period of two
months
expires
from
the
date
of
notifying the vacancy to the commission,
the committee of management does not
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
294
get any power to fill up the vacancy on
adhoc basis.
Case referred to:
1988 UPLBEC-397, 1998 UPLBEC 1722, 1997
(II) SCF-153, AIR 1998 SC 331

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Anilesh Pratap Singh V. State of U.P. and others
293
order dated 24.2.1999. It has not affected any
vested right of the respondents- writ
petitioners as only criteria for awarding
additional marks to sports persons has been
clarified. Thus, the contention that the
Government order dated 24.2.1999 would
not apply to the candidates who had applied
pursuant to the advertisement dated 8.3.1998
is misconceived and cannot be accepted.

So far as the contention that the sports
person of state and National level whose
name find place in the select list of February
1999 without having won any prize in the
State/National
level
Tournament
is
concerned, it may be mentioned that the
respondents (writ petitioners) have not
brought any material on record to establish
the same. This was also not the ground of
challenge by the respondents (writ petitioner)
in their writ petition before this Court. Even
otherwise, in the absence of any such
material having been brought on record, we
are not in a position to hold that any
candidate has been selected in violation of
Government order dated 24.2.1999.

In view of foregoing discussions, we
are of the considered opinion that the
impugned order passed by the learned Single
Judge, quashing the order dated 11.5.1999
suffers from manifest legal infirmity and
cannot be sustained. It is accordingly, set
aside.

The Special Appeal is allowed.

However, the parties shall bear their
own costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 2.5.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN CHATTERJEE, C.J.
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGARWAL, J.

Special Appeal No. 223 of 1999

Anilesh Pratap Singh

...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Anil Bhushan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ran Vijay Singh
S.C.

U.P.
Secondary
Education
Service
Commission
(Removal
of
Difficulties
order) 1981 Para 5- Adhoc appointment
on direct recruitment post- permanent
Principal retired on 30.6.91- vacancy
advertised by the Management on 4.7.91
in only one News Paper- appointment
made on 4.8.91- whether such appointee
is entitled for salary ? held "No".

U.P.
Secondary
Education
Service
Commission
(Removal
of
Difficulties
order 1981) - adhoc appointment by
direct recruitment post- whether the
provisions for appointment only after
expiry of the period of two months from
the date of advertisement the 4 vacancy
is mandatory on obligatory.

Held- Para 16

Applying the principles laid down in the
aforementioned cases, we are of the
considered opinion that the provisions of
section 18 of the 1982 Act is mandatory
and unless and until the period of two
months
expires
from
the
date
of
notifying the vacancy to the commission,
the committee of management does not
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
294
get any power to fill up the vacancy on
adhoc basis.
Case referred to:
1988 UPLBEC-397, 1998 UPLBEC 1722, 1997
(II) SCF-153, AIR 1998 SC 331

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.K. Agarwal, J.)

1. The present special appeal has
been filed against the judgement and
order dated 11.12.1998 passed by a
learned Single Judge of this Court in civil
misc. writ petition no. 15293 of 1992,
whereby, the writ petition filed by the writ
petitioner- appellant has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise
to the present special appeal are as
follows :

Janta Inter College, Barsathi, Jaunpur
(hereinafter referred to as the college) is a
recognized and aided college under the
provisions of U.P. Intermediate Act
1921`. One Sri Karam Raj Mishra,
lecturer in Civics retired on 30.6.91. The
Committee of management of the said
college
advertised
the
vacancy
on
4.7.1991 in the local newspaper "Dainik
Manyavar", a newspaper published in the
district Jaunpur. The Committee of
management
of
the
college
vide
resolution passed on 4.8.1991 selected the
writ petitioner-appellant on the post of
lecturer
in
civics
and
issued
an
appointment letter on 16.8.1991. The
appointment
of
the
writ
petitioner
appellant was made on adhoc basis. He
joined on the post of lecturer in civics in
the said college on 19.8.1991. When the
appellant was not being paid the salary, he
approached this Court by filing a writ
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India, which as mentioned
herein-before had been dismissed by the
learned Single Judge whose order is under
challenge in the present special appeal.

3. We have heard Sri Anil Bhushan,
learned counsel for the appellant and Sri
Ran Vijay Singh, learned Standing
counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the appellant was
appointed on 16.8.1991 as adhoc lecturer
in civics against the vacancy caused by
the retirement of Sri Karam Raj Mishra.
The college authority had sent the
requisition under section 18 of the U.P.
Secondary
Education
Service
Commission and Selection Board Act
1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 1982
Act). The vacancy was notified to the
commission and even if the appointment
has been made before the expiry of a
period of two months from the date of
notifying the vacancy to the Commission,
the appointment would not be bad and
illegal, but would take effect after the
expiry of the period of two months. He
further submitted that the vacancy was
advertised in the local newspaper "Dainik
Manyawar"
published
on
24.7.1991,
which is a widely circulated newspaper in
the district of Jaunpur and if the vacancy
was
not
advertised
in
two
daily
newspapers,
as
per
UP
Secondary
Education Service Commission (Removal
of Difficulties) order 1982, then it is only
in irregularity, which will not make the
appointment void. He further submitted
that the requirement of advertisement in
two newspapers was directory and non
mandatory. He relied upon the following
cases:
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Anilesh Pratap Singh V. State of U.P. and others
295
1. Km. Madu Chauhan v. District
Inspector
of
Schools
1988
UPLBEC 397

2. Ashika Prasad Shukla v. District
Inspector of schools Allahabad
and another 1998 (3) UPLBEC1722

3. Radha Raizada and others v.
Committee
of
Management,
Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter
College
and
others
1994
(3)
UPLBEC 1551
4. Konch degree College, Jalaun and
others v. Ram Sajivan Shukla and
another 1997 (11) SCF-153
5. Arun Tiwari and others v. Zila
Medhavi Shikshak Sangh AIR
1998 SC 331.

5. Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned
standing counsel, however, submitted that
under section 18 of the 1982 act, the
management has been given powers to
make appointment by direct recruitment
or promotion of teacher on purely adhoc
basis only after the management had
notified the vacancy to the Commission in
accordance with sub section 1 of section
10 of the aforesaid Act and the post of the
teacher actually remained vacant for more
than two months. According to him the
post of lecturer in civics in the college fell
vacant
only
on
1.7.1991
and
the
appointment of the appellant was made on
16.8.1991, even without waiting for the
expiry o the period of two months.
Moreover, the Committee of management
had taken steps for filling up the vacancy
immediately
after
the
vacancy
had
occurred and had in fact, advertised the
same
on
4.7.1991,
whereas,
the
committee of management could have
exercised the powers for filing up the
vacancy on adhoc basis only after the
expiry of the period of two months from
the date of notifying the vacancy to the
commission in the event the said vacancy
was not filled up by the Commission. He
submitted that under para 5 of the U.P.
Secondary
Education
Services
Commission (Removal of Difficulties
order 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the
first removal of Difficulties order), the
adhoc appointment by direct recruitment
can be made only after the vacancy is
advertised in at least two newspapers
having adequate circulation in U.P.,
which is a mandatory requirement and
therefore, the advertisement made in only
one newspaper and that too in a local
newspaper of district, Jaunpur, does not
fulfil
requirement
of
the
aforesaid
paragraph. Thus, the appointment of the
writ petitioner appellant is wholly illegal
and contrary of law and the learned Judge
had rightly dismissed the writ petition,
which calls for no interference in appeal.

6. Having heard the learned counsel
for the parties, we find that admittedly,
the vacancy on the post of lecturer in
civics in the college occurred on 1.7.91 on
the retirement on one Sri Karam Raj
Mishra on 30.6.1991. The vacancy was
advertised in the local newspaper 'Dainik
Manyavar' on 4.7.1991. There is no
material on record to show as to on what
date the committee of management of the
college had notified the vacancy to the
Commission. Under section 18 of the
1982 Act, the management gets the power
to fill up the vacancy by way of adhoc
appointment only after the said remains
vacant for a period of two months from
the date the vacancy has been notified to
the Commission. In the present case
without waiting for the expiry of the
period of two months from the date of
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
296
notifying the vacancy to the Commission,
if any, the management immediately
advertised the vacancy on 4.7.1991, held
the interview on 4.8.1991 and filled up
the vacancy on 16.8.1991 i.e. within a
short span of one month. The Committee
of management had no power to fill up
the vacancy at that time, when the
appointment
was
made.
Thus,
the
appointment of the appellant was wholly
illegal and contrary to law and the learned
single Judge had rightly dismissed the
writ petition.

7. In the case of Madhur Chauhan
(supra) a Division Bench of this Court
considered the provisions of section 16
(1) of U.P. Higher Education Service
Commission Act, 1980, which relates to
appointment of adhoc teachers. It read as
follows :

"Where
the
management
has
notified a vacancy to the commission in
accordance with sub section 2 of section
12 and the Commission fails to
recommend the names of suitable
candidates in accordance with sub
section (1) of that section within three
months
from
the
date
of
such
notification,
the
management
may
appoint a teacher on purely adhoc basis
from amongst the persons holding
qualification prescribed thereof."

8. After considering the provision of
the aforesaid section, the court thought it
proper not to deprive the petitioner therein
of her salary as it appeared that no name
had
been
recommended
by
the
Commission till date. The relevant portion
of para 12 of the reports is reproduced
below: -

9. "The question that now arises is
whether the appointment of Kumari
Madhu Chauhan falls within the ambit
of Section 16 (1) in order to entitle her
to claim salary for the post of lecturer
in Sociology. The management does not
dispute the validity of her appointment.
The opposite parties in her writ petition
have not filed any counter affidavit to
controvert her claim. However, one
irregularity
does
appear
in
her
appointment. In Management's writ
petition it has been stated that the
vacancy was notified to the commission
in the first week of September 1986. It
is then stated that the Committee of
Management adopted resolution on 26th
November, 1986 for appointing Kumari
Madhu Chauhan to the post in
question. In paragraph 9 of the
management's
writ
petition
is
mentioned
that
Kumari
Madhu
Chauhan was appointed with effect
from 4th December, 1986. Under section
16 (1) the Management acquires right
to make adhoc appointment only after
the commission fails to recommend
names of suitable candidates within
three
months
from
the
date
of
notification of vacancy. In the present
case the Committee of Management
adopted resolution in favour of Kumari
Madhu Chauhan's appointment before
the period of three months expired. The
Management has not stated the exact
date on which the vacancy was notified
to the Commission and has merely
stated that the notification made in the
first week of September, 1986. The
appointment letter was issued on 4th
December, 1986. It, therefore, appears
that the period of three months
referred to in Section 6 (1) had not
expired when Kumari Madhu Chauhan
was appointed lecturer in Sociology.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Anilesh Pratap Singh V. State of U.P. and others
297
However, on the ground we do not
propose to deprive her salary as it
appears that till date no name has been
recommended by the Commission. Her
petition also, therefore, deserves to be
allowed.

10. From a reading of the aforesaid
paragraph, it is clear that the Division
Bench had not held that the appointment
made prior to the expiry of the period of
three months from the date of notifying
the vacancy to the Commission is
directory or will take effect after the
expiry of three months, as canvassed by
the learned counsel for the writ petitioner-
appellant.

11. In the case of Ashika Prasad
Shukla (supra), the Division Bench of this
Court was examining the provision of
para 2 of the U.P. Secondary Education
Services
Commission
(Removal
of
Difficulties order 1981, which provided
for the procedure for filling up short term
vacancy. It provided that the manager
shall forward the names and particulars of
the candidates selected and also other
candidates and the quality point marks
allotted to them to the District Inspector
of schools for his prior approval and the
District
Inspector
of
Schools
shall
communicate his decision within seven
days of the date of receipt of the papers
by him, failing which the Inspector will
be deemed to have given approval and on
receipt of the approval of the District
Inspector of Schools or as the case may
be, on his failure to communicate the
decision within seven days of the receipt
of the papers by him from the Manager,
the management was empowered to
appoint the selected candidate and to issue
an order of appointment under his
signature.
12. The Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Ashika Prasad Shukla
(supra) have held that if the appointment
is made prior to the approval or deemed
approval then it would become effective
from the date of approval of deemed
approval. The relevant paragraph 15 and
16 of the reports are reproduced below :

"15. The next question that falls
for
consideration
is
whether
the
appointment of the petitioner appellant
could still stand invalidated on the
ground that it was made without prior
approval of the District Inspector of
School. Sri Yatindra Singh place
reliance on a Division Bench decision of
this Court in A.K. Pathshala vs. Smt.
M.D. Agnihotri, 1971 Alld. LJ 983,
wherein it was held, on construction of
Section
16
F
(1)
of
the
U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921, that
appointment without prior approval by
the Competent authority would, in the
eye of law, be no appointment. The
ratio of the said decision as held by a
subsequent Division Bench in Lalit
Mohan Mishra vs. District Inspector of
Schools, 1979 Alld.LJ 1025, is that a
person gets the status of a teacher when
requisite formality is completed. The
relevant observations are as under :

"Without approval the person does
not get the status of a teacher even
though the approval is to be followed
by formal letter but in the absence of
formal letter the person gets the status
of a teacher after approval to the
appointment is given by the District
Inspector of Schools. The appointment
of a person as a teacher becomes
effective only from the date approval is
given and even if a person is allowed to
work
before
the
same
has
no
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
298
recognition
under
the
U.P.
Intermediate Education Act.

16. Paragraph 2 (3) (iv) of the
Second Removal of Difficulties order is
not phrased in a prohibitory language
as was the language used in Section 16F
(1)
of
the
U.P.
Intermediate
Education Act, 1921. The words 'prior
approval' have been used in sub clause
(ii) of paragraph 2 (3) of the Second
Removal of Difficulties order and
conjoint reading of sub clauses (ii), (iii)
and (iv) of clause (3) of paragraph 2, no
doubt,
leads
to
an
inescapable
conclusion that the appointment would
be issued under the signature to the
Manager only on the approval having
been communicated by the District
Inspector of schools within seven days
of the receipt of the papers or where
the approval is deemed to have been
accorded as visualized by sub clause
(iii) of clause (3) of paragraph 2 of the
Second Removal of Difficulties order.
However, appointment if made prior to
approval of deemed approval, would
become effective from the date of
approval of deemed approval as held
by the Division Bench of this Court in
Lalit Mohan Mishra. There is nothing
on the record to connote that prerequisite conditions attracting deemed
approval were not satisfied in the
instant case. The learned Single Judge
has also not addressed himself to this
facts of the matter and the judgment
under appeal on this score too cannot
be sustained."

13. From a reading of the aforesaid
paragraphs it will be seen that the
Division Bench had no occasion to
consider the provision of section 18 of the
1982 Act, which puts a complete embargo
on the powers of the committee of
management to fill up any vacancy on
adhoc basis unless and until the expiry of
the period of two months from the date of
notifying the vacancy to he Commission.

14. In the case of Radha Raizada
(supra), a Full Bench of this Court has
held that the power to appoint adhoc
teachers by direct recruitment in a
substantive vacancy is available only
when the pre conditions mentioned in
section 18 of the Act, are satisfied. It
further held that the adhoc appointment of
a teacher by direct recruitment can be
resorted to only when the condition
precedent for such powers, as stated in
para 18 of the Act are present and only in
the manner provided for in paragraph 5 of
the Removal of Difficulties Order. The
relevant paragraph 41 and 42 of the report
are reproduced below:

"41. It has already been noticed
that Section 18 of the Principal Act
provides for power to appoint a teacher
purely on adhoc basis either by
promotion or by direct recruitment
against the substantive vacancy in the
institution
when
the
condition
precedent for exercise of powers exist
namely that the Management has
notified the said vacancy to the
Commission in accordance with the
provisions
of
the
Act
and
the
Commission has failed to recommend
the name of any suitable candidate for
being appointed as a teacher within one
year from the date of such notification
of the post of such teacher has actually
remained vacant for more than two
months. However, since the state
government was alive to the situation
that
the
establishment
of
the
Commission may take long time and
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Anilesh Pratap Singh V. State of U.P. and others
299
even after it is established, it may take
long time to make available the
required teacher in the institution and
as such issued three Removal of
Difficulties orders namely Removal of
Difficulties
order
dated
11.9.81,
Removal of Difficulties order dated
14.4.1982. In fact these Removal of
Difficulties orders were issued to
remove the difficulties coming the way
of a Management in running the
institution in absence of teacher. This
power to appoint adhoc teachers by
direct recruitment thus, it is available
only
when
the
pre
conditions
mentioned in section 18 of the act are
satisfied, secondly, the vacancy is
substantive vacancy and thirdly, the
vacancy
could
not
be
filled
by
promotion. Neither the act nor the
Removal of Difficulties orders defines
vacancy. However, the vacancy has
been denied in Rule 2 (11) of UP
Secondary
Education
Services
Commission
Rules
1983
'Vacancy
means' a vacancy arising out as a result
of
death,
retirement,
resignation,
termination, dismissal, creation of new
post or appointment/promotion of the
incumbent to any higher post in
substantive capacity. Thus, both under
section 18 of the Act and under the
Removal of Difficulties orders the
management
of
an
institution
is
empowered
to
make
adhoc
appointment by direct recruitment, in
the manner laid down in paragraph 5
of the First Removal of Difficulties
order only when such vacancy cannot
be filled by promotion and for a period
till a candidate duly selected by the
Commission joins the post, as noticed
earlier both section 18 of the Act and
the provisions of First Removal of
Difficulties order provide for adhoc
appointment
of
teacher
in
the
institution, later further providing for
method
and
manner
of
such
appointments are part of one scheme.
Scheme being provision for adhoc
appointment of teacher in the absence
of duly selected teachers by the
commission. The provisions may be two
but the power to appoint is one and the
same and therefore, the provisions
contained in Section 18 and Removal of
Difficulties order are to harmonized. It
is, therefore, not correct to say that
appointment of a teacher on adhoc
basis is either under section 18 of the
Act
or
under
the
Removal
of
Difficulties order. Thus, if contingency
arises for adhoc appointment of teacher
by direct recruitment the procedure
provided under the First Removal of
Difficulties order has to be followed.
Paragraph 5 of the First Removal of
Difficulties order provides that the
management shall, as soon as may be,
inform the District Inspector of Schools
about the details of vacancy and the
District Inspector of Schools shall invite
application from the local Employment
Exchange and also through public
advertisement
in
at
least
two
newspapers
having
adequate
circulation in Uttar Pradesh. Sub
paragraph (8) of paragraph 5 of the
Removal of difficulties order provides
that the District Inspector of schools
shall cause the best candidate selected
on the basis of quality point specified in
Appendix. The compilation of quality
point may be done by the Retired
Government Gazetted Officer, in the
personal supervision of the Inspector.
Paragraph 6 of the First Removal of
Difficulties order further provides for
appointment of such teacher under
paragraph 5 who shall possess such
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
300
essential qualification as laid down in
Appendix -A referred to in the
Regulation 2 of Chapter II of the
Regulation made in the Intermediate
Education Act.

42. In view of these provisions the
adhoc appointment of a teacher by
direct recruitment can be resorted to
only when the condition precedent for
exercise of such powers as stated in
section 18 of the Act are present and
only in the manner provided for in
paragraph 5 of the Removal of
Difficulties order. This view of mine
finds support in a number of decisions
namely, Ran Bahadur Singh and others
vs.
District
Inspector
of
Schools,
Saharanpur, 1991 (2) UPLBEC page
1079 and Lalta Prasad Yadav and
others vs. State of U.P. 1988 UPLBEC
page 345. When a teacher is appointed
on adhoc basis is in accordance with
the paragraph 5 of the First Removal of
Difficulties order there is further no
requirement of approval or prior
approval of the District Inspector of
Schools
for
such
appointment.
However, it goes without saying that if
a management without following the
procedure indicated above makes an
adhoc
appointment
the
District
Inspector of Schools makes an adhoc
appointment the District Inspector of
Schools possess general power under
the Payment of Salaries Act to stop
payment of salary to such teacher."

15. The Full Bench decision of this
court in Radha Raizada's case has been
approved by the Apex Court in the case of
Prabhat Kumar Sharma and others vs.
State of U.P. and others JT 1996 (6) SC579. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case
has held that any adhoc appointment of
the teachers under section 18 shall be only
transient in nature pending allotment of
teachers selected by the commission and
recommended for appointment and such
adhoc appointments should also be made
in
accordance
with
the
procedure
prescribed in para 5 of the First 1981
Order and any appointment made in
transgression
thereof
is
illegal
appointment and is void and confers no
right on the appointees.

16. Applying the principles laid
down in the aforementioned cases, we are
of the considered opinion that the
provisions of section 18 of the 1982 Act is
mandatory and unless and until the period
of two months expires from the date of
notifying the vacancy to the commission,
the committee of management does not
get any power to fill up the vacancy on
adhoc basis.

17. Since we have come to the
conclusion
that
the
Committee
of
management had no power to make
appointment on adhoc basis on the
substantive vacancy of the post of lecturer
in civics in the college before the expiry
of the period of two months from the date
of
notifying
the
vacancy
to
the
commission, the date being not on record
and even if it is taken that immediately
after the occurring of the vacancy the
same was notified to it on 2.7.1991 and as
the period of two months did not expire
before 31.8.2001 and the appointment
having been made much before i.e. on
16.8.1991, the Committee of management
could not have made such appointment
and the same is contrary to law, therefore
we are not going into the other question as
to whether the advertisement in two
newspapers, as provided in para 5 of the
First Removal of Difficulties order is
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] U.P. State Electricity Board V. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others
301
mandatory and is to be strictly complied
with or not.

18. In view of the foregoing
discussions, we do not find any merit in
this appeal and it is dismissed. However,
the parties shall bear their own costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.03.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ petition No.16978 of 1996

U.P. State Electricity Board ...Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P.,
Rampur and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ranjit Saxena

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri P.C. Jhingan
Ms. Sarita Jhingan
S.C.

Constitution of India, Art 226 and 227Scope of supersory power-High Court
can not re-appreciate the evidence by
regarding its own finding.
Case law discussed:
1995(6) SCC-576, 1997(7) SCC-300
1998(5) SCC-749, 1999(1) SCC-47
1998(3) SCC-341, 1999(2) SCC-171
1999(2) SCC-143, 1999(4) SCC-1
1999(4) SCC-521, 1999(6) SCC-82
AIR 2000 SC-931, 2001(4) SCC-472
2000(4) SCC-245, 2001(1) SCC-4
AIR 1973 SC-1227, AIR 1982 SC-1552
1984(1) SCC-152, AIR 1984 SC-914
1987(4) SCC-691, 1990(3) SCC-565
AIR 1965 SC-917, 2000(87) FLR-483
AIR 1990 SC-2174, 1997(1) SCC-9
AIR 1997 SC-2661, 1998 (2) SCC-159
1999(7) SCC-645
Practice
&
Procedures
-
Petitioner
workman-about
15
charges
stand
proved-punishment of removal awarded
-Labour Court found all the charges
grave
in
nature-even
interfered
by
granting reinstatement without back
wages-held-the order of punishment
relates back from the date of dismissedcannot be interfered by the labour court;
number of reasons discussed.

Held- Para 17

In the instant case as the result of the
enquiry held by the Labour Court relate
back to the date of removal by the
employer,
the
workman
cannot
be
awarded any relief.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
for setting aside the Award passed by the
Labour Court dated 13th November, 1995,
by which the learned labour Court has
quashed the order of removal from service
of respondent workman in spite of
proving all the 15 charges against him, on
the ground that his family members would
suffer and directed for reinstatement of
the workman with all consequential
benefits except the back wages.

2. Facts and circumstances giving
rise to this case are that the respondent
workman raised the industrial dispute and
the appropriate Government vide order
dated 05.06.1992 made a reference as to
whether termination of the services of the
workman w.e.f. 08.03.1977 was in
accordance with law, and if not, to what
relief he was entitled to? In pursuance of
the said reference the workman filed the
claim petition submitting that he had been
employed as a clerk on daily wage w.e.f.
3rd December, 1973 and he was issued a
charge sheet dated 18/20th September,
1976 containing 15 charges. Enquiry was