# Devi v. Joint Director of Consolidation U.P. & Ors. 1973 ALJ 395

- **Citation:** (2005) 4 ILRA 1214
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46588 of 2005
- **Bench:** Arun Tandon
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/devi-v-joint-director-of-consolidation-u-p-ors-1973-alj-395-40773
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

and Law Officer Establishment Rules1942-Rule-5 (2)-Regularisation-working
on daily wages basis-long period of 6
years-can not be basis for regularizationinitial
appointment
contrary
to
the
procedure provided in Rule-by adopting
pick and choose policy-held-illegal.

Held: Para 16

The illegalities in that regard are writ
large
on
the
records.
In
such
circumstances,
this
Court
has
no
hesitation
to
hold
that
the
initial
appointment of the petitioners itself was
de-hors any procedure known to law and
therefore cannot be a subject matter of
further
continuance
under
the
discretionary and equitable powers of
this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. This Court would
rather follow the dictum of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Gujrat
Agriculture University vs. Rathore Labhu
Bechar and others; 2001(3) SCC 574 and
therefore
refuse
the
relief
of
regularization to the petitioners based
only on the plea of long service rendered
by them as a Class-IV employee since

## Text

1214 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
operation no suit under Section 209 of
U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act can be filed, the
jurisdiction being barred and hence nonfiling of suit would confirm no rights on
the person who was in possession an the
date the consolidation proceedings started
if the limitation for a suit under Section
209 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has not till
them run out. In other words if before the
expiry of the prescribed period of
limitation consolidation intervenes then
the limitation prescribe by section 209
stands arrested. The view taken by me
finds support from a division bench
judgment of our court in the case of Smt.
K.
Devi
Vs.
Joint
Director
of
Consolidation U.P. & Ors. 1973 ALJ
395.

17. In view of the above legal
position the period of six years from the
time petitioner attained majority having
not expired before the commencement of
the
Consolidation
proceedings,
the
respondent no.4 would not acquire any
title or right by adverse possession. The
remand order made by Deputy Director of
Consolidation cannot be said to be
justified in any manner in the aforesaid
facts and circumstances.

18. The objection raised by learned
counsel for the respondents that writ
petition challenging remand order is not
maintainable, is also not liable to be
accepted. It cannot be said that as a rule
writ petition against remand order is not
maintainable. Generally, the court refuses
to interfere or issue a writ of certiorari
against a remand order for there is no
final adjudication. If the court normally
does not interfere with the remand order,
it does not mean that there is any lack of
power or the writ petitioned is not
maintainable. The court can interfere if it
find the circumstances to be extraordinary
or the interference necessary in the
interest of justice. In the present case on
the material available on the record the
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation
recorded a finding of fact regarding the
age of the petitioner, Deputy Director of
Consolidation without even referring to
the said documents or setting aside the
finding of fact recorded by Settlement
Officer has remanded the case back and
that too on the illegal presumption that the
sale deed was a viodable document. Thus
the remand order in no way can be said to
be justified. The approach of the Deputy
Director of Consolidation is totally
contrary to the law and the order deserves
to be interfered and quashed by this court.

19. In the result writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order of Deputy Director of Consolidation
dated 26.8.1980 stands quashed and that
of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated
9.3.1979 stands affirmed. However, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, there
shall be no order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.11.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46588 of 2005

Sanjeev Sharma & another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ravi Kant
Sri M.R. Khan
Sri Manish Goyal
Sir Anil Bhushan
Sri Gautam Chaudhary
4 All] Sanjeev Sharma V. State of U.P. and others
1215
Counsel for the Respondents:
Addl. Advocate General
S.C.

United Provinces Legal Remembrance
and Law Officer Establishment Rules1942-Rule-5 (2)-Regularisation-working
on daily wages basis-long period of 6
years-can not be basis for regularizationinitial
appointment
contrary
to
the
procedure provided in Rule-by adopting
pick and choose policy-held-illegal.

Held: Para 16

The illegalities in that regard are writ
large
on
the
records.
In
such
circumstances,
this
Court
has
no
hesitation
to
hold
that
the
initial
appointment of the petitioners itself was
de-hors any procedure known to law and
therefore cannot be a subject matter of
further
continuance
under
the
discretionary and equitable powers of
this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. This Court would
rather follow the dictum of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Gujrat
Agriculture University vs. Rathore Labhu
Bechar and others; 2001(3) SCC 574 and
therefore
refuse
the
relief
of
regularization to the petitioners based
only on the plea of long service rendered
by them as a Class-IV employee since
1999.
Case law discussed:
1997 (1) SCC-251
2001 SCC-664,
2001 (2) SCC-41
2001 (9) SCC-204
2001 (4) SCC-139
1986 (3) SCC-156
2003 (1) SCC-95
2004 (7) SCC-112
2001 (3) SCC-574
2005 (1) SCC-639

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ravi Kant Senior
Advocate, assisted by Sri Manish Goel
Advocate, Sri Anil Bhushan Advocate,
Sri M.R. Khan Advocate, on behalf of the
petitioners in Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No. 46588 of 2005, Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 58494 of 2005 and Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 60861 of 2005.
Additional Advocate General on behalf of
the respondents in all the writ petitions.

2. These three writ petitions have
been filed by 21 petitioners. All of them
claim to have been appointed as Class-IV
Employees on daily wage basis (on a
fixed salary of Rs.1050/- per month) in
the Establishment of Advocate General
U.P., Allahabad and in the Establishment
of Government Advocate at Allahabad
between 1998 to 1999. The petitioners
allege that they have been continuously
working as daily wage employees since
their initial appointment without any
break. The services rendered by the
petitioners are highly satisfactory and
absolutely nothing adverse has been
noticed against the work and performance
of the petitioners as Class-IV employees.

3. It is contended that in past the
respondents have been filling up the
Class-IV vacancies, as and when they
became available, by regularization of
daily wage employees, who had been
appointed earlier. In support thereof
reliance has been placed upon the letters
dated 9th June, 2004 and 19th June, 2004
(Copies
whereof
has
enclosed
as
Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition No.
58494 of 2005). In this background on 7th
June, 1999 Advocate General U.P. had
forwarded
a
request
to
the
State
Government for sanction/creation of new
posts in order to cope with the additional
work. In response to the aforesaid
proposal, a letter dated 13th December,
2000 was forwarded by the State
1216 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
Government.
Thereafter
further
correspondence was entered into and
meeting between the State Officials and
the Advocate General took place on
various dates.

4. On the strength of these
documents brought on record along with
the writ petition, petitioners submit that
between the Advocate General U.P. and
the State Government a decision was
taken that there was requirements of 106
additional Class-IV posts and it was also
specifically noticed that against the
aforesaid 106 additional posts, 57 daily
wage employees were already working.
Under the proposal it was recommended
that after the aforesaid 57 daily wage
Class-IV employees (persons like the
petitioners) are regularized, 49 posts will
be available for new appointments.

5. Ultimately on 17th May, 2005,
the State Government sanctioned amongst
other 104 posts of Class-IV employee in
the pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200. Out of
which, 58 posts were earmarked for the
Lucknow Establishment, while 46 posts
were
earmarked
for
Allahabad
Establishment. The letter dated 17th May,
2005 specifically provided that posts shall
be deemed to be created from the date
appointments on the newly created posts
are actually made.

6. On the creation of the aforesaid
additional posts of Class-IV employee in
the Establishment, the office of the
Advocate General U.P. at Allahabad
issued an advertisement dated 22nd June,
2005
inviting
applications
from
all
eligible candidates, including daily wage
employees for appointment against the
aforesaid 46 vacancies. The advertisement
provided that the selection shall be made
on the basis of interview, which was
scheduled
for
30th
June,
2005.
Subsequent thereto another advertisement
was published by the office of the
Advocate General U.P. Allahabad dated
17th
August,
2005
where
it
was
mentioned that written examination shall
take place on 3rd September, 2005 and all
the applicants may appear in the said
written examination. At this stage the
present writ petitions were filed by the
daily wage employees with the prayer that
the advertisement dated 17th August,
2005 and 22nd June, 2005 be quashed and
respondents may be directed to absorb the
petitioners (regularize the petitioners)
against the posts which have been now
created under the Government Order
dated 17th May, 2005. The relief prayed
for in the present writ petitions were
sought to be justified on the basis of the
following contentions:

(a) Petitioners, who have worked for more
than 6 years regularly as Class-IV
employees,
are
entitled
for
such
absorption/regularization on the post now
created by the State Government in view
of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the following
cases:
(i)
State of Hariyana vs. Pyara Singh;
1992(4) SCC 118
(ii)
Gujrat Agricultural University vs.
Rathore Labhu Bechar and others;
2001(3) SCC 574.
(iii) Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board
an others vs. J. Venkateshwara Rao
and others; 2003(1) SCC 116
(b) On the principle of promissory
stopples the respondents are debarred
from making direct recruitment on the
post in question without considering the
regularization of the petitioners at the first
instance inasmuch as a specific assurance
4 All] Sanjeev Sharma V. State of U.P. and others
1217
was held out to the petitioners by the State
Authorities qua their regularization on
posts becoming available, as was borne
out from the correspondence, which was
entered into between the Advocate
General U.P. Allahabad and the State
Government as well as from the past
conduct of the respondents. In support
thereto the counsel for the petitioners
have placed reliance upon the judgments
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
1997(7) SCC 251, 2001 SCC 664,
2001(2) SCC 41, 2001(9) SCC 204 and
2001(4) SCC 139.
(c) Lastly it is submitted that so far as the
Establishment at Lucknow is concerned,
no written examination has taken place
and appointments have been offered to
daily wage employees as well as to the
candidates from the open market only on
the basis of the interview. Therefore, the
respondents cannot adopt two different
modes
of
selection,
one
for
the
establishment at Allahabad and other for
the establishment at Lucknow. In support
thereto the counsel for the petitioners
have placed reliance upon the judgments
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
1986 (3) SCC 156, 2003(1) SCC 95.

7.

On
behalf
of
the
State
respondents,
Additional
Advocate
General submits that the initial entry of
the petitioners in service itself was
patently illegal and void. Admittedly, no
sanctioned posts were available on the
date the petitioners had been appointed
nor any budgetary allocation in that
regard had been made. It is further
submitted that appointments on the post in
question is regulated by The United
Provinces Legal Remembrancer's and
Law Officers Establishments Rules, 1952.

8. All the petitioners have been
offered appointment without following
any procedure known to law for such
selection/appointments. They had only
been
picked
and
chosen
by
the
incumbents holding the office earlier for
the purposes of catering to the exigencies
of work in the establishment. Such
appointments which are offered de horse
the rules, cannot be form the basis for
regularization inasmuch as the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of A.
Uma Rani vs. Registrar, Cooperative
Societies and others; 2004(7) SCC 112
has specifically held that appointments
made in contravention of the statutory
provisions would be illegal and cannot be
regularized by the State. The said
judgment has been specifically approved
in the latest judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra
L.
Jain
and
Others
vs.
Indore
Development
Authority
and
Others;
2005(1) SCC 639. With regards to plea of
promissory estopples, it is submitted that
no assurance was ever held out by the
State respondents to the petitioners qua
their regularization at any point of time
nor any such promise is borne out from
the records. It is further submitted that the
petitioners have failed to establish as to in
what manner they had altered their
position because of the daily wage
appointments offered to them so as to set
up a plea of promissory estoppel.

9. Lastly it is pointed out that so far
as the establishment at Lucknow is
concerned,
as
against
58
newly
created/available vacancies only 236
applications were received in response to
the advertisement published on 30th June,
2005 and therefore the selections have
been held after holding interview only on
28th, 29th and 30th June, 2005. In
1218 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
pursuance of the recommendation of the
Selection Committee, constituted for the
purposes, appointments have been offered
to the candidates selected on merit and the
said selected candidates have also joined.
It has been clarified that a large number of
Class-IV
employees,
who
have
participated in the selection at Lucknow
have also been offered fresh appointments
on the newly created posts, on the basis of
merit secured by them in the process of
selection.

10. So far as the Establishment at
Allahabad is concerned, it is pointed out
that against the 46 newly created posts
available at the Allahabad establishment
1431 applications were received and after
scrutiny as many as 1143 applications
were found valid. Since it was not
practically possible to hold selection on
the basis of the interview only from such
large number of the applicants, it was
decided to hold a written examination for
the purposes of short-listing of the
candidates to be called for interview.
Learned Additional Advocate General
submits that the process adopted for shortlisting of the applicants to be considered
for final selection through interview, is a
fair and just procedure known to law and
therefore cannot be said to be arbitrary
and unjustified in any manner. Since the
fact situation with regards to number of
applicants for the posts at Lucknow
establishment vis-Ã -vis the number of
applicants in respect of the vacancies at
the
Allahabad
establishment
was
materially different and two large the
decision to hold the written examination
for short-listing, cannot be said to be
discriminatory in any manner.

11. I have heard counsel for the
parties and gone through the records of
the writ petitions.

12. The first and foremost issue for
consideration before this Court is as to
whether the petitioners have a right of
being regularized against the vacancies,
which have now been created and have
become available in the establishment at
Allahabad, only on the strength of their
long service (nearly six years) as daily
wage Class-IV employees. It is no doubt
true that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in the judgment reported in 2001 (3) SCC
574 has held in paragraph 17 and 21 as
follows:

"17. From the aforesaid, it emerges
that the learned Single Judge had
concurred with the finding of the Tribunal
that the contesting workmen have been
working in the appellant University
regularly for a long number of years. The
existence of permanent nature of work
was inferred on this account and also due
to
the
vastness
of
the
appellant's
establishment.
The
regularization
is
claimed only in respect of Class IV
employees. The main objection which was
raised earlier and is raised before us, is
that a person could only be regularized
on any vacant post and if there be one he
should be qualified for the same as per
qualifications, if any, prescribed. In fact,
the Tribunal has held that on the date of
the award, most of the workmen had
completed 10 years of their service. It is
also well settled, if work is taken by the
employer continuously from the daily
wage workers for a long number of years
without considering their regularization
for
its
financial
gain
as
against
employees' legitimate claim, has been
held by this Court repeatedly as an unfair
4 All] Sanjeev Sharma V. State of U.P. and others
1219
labour practice. In fact, taking work from
a daily-wage worker or an ad hoc
appointee is always viewed to be only for
a
short
period
or
as
a
stopgap
arrangement, but we find that a new
culture is growing to continue with it for a
long time, either for financial gain or for
controlling its workers more effectively
with a sword of Damocles hanging over
their heads or to continue with favoured
ones in the cases of ad hoc employees
with stalling competent and legitimate
claimants. Thus we have no hesitation to
denounce this practice. If the work is of
such a nature, which has to be taken
continuously and in any case when this
pattern becomes apparent, whey they
continue to work for year after year, the
only option to the employer is to
regularise them. Financial viability, no
doubt, is one of the considerations but
then such enterprise or institution should
not spread its arms longer than its means.
The consequent corollary is, where work
taken is not for a short period or limited
for a season or where work is not for a
part-time nature and if pattern shows that
work is to be taken continuously year
after year, there is no justification to keep
such persons hanging as daily-rate
workers. In such a situation a legal
obligation is cast on an employer; if there
be vacant post, to fill it up with such
workers in accordance with rules, if any,
and where necessary by relaxing the
qualifications, where long experience
could
be
equitable
with
such
qualifications. If no posts exist then duty
is cast to assess the quantum of such work
and create such equivalent posts for their
absorption."

21. State of Haryana v. Piara Singh. This
was
a
case
of
ad
hoc/temporary
government employees. This Court held,
those
eligible
and
qualified
and
continuing in service satisfactorily for a
long period have a right to be considered
for
regularization.
Long
continuing
service gives rise to a presumption about
the need for a regular post. In such cases
the
Government
should
consider
feasibility of regularization having regard
the particular circumstances, with a
positive approach and empathy for the
person concerned."

13. To the similar effect are the
other judgments, which have been relied
upon by the counsel for the petitioners.

14. The legal position has, however,
gone a sea change subsequent to the
aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in its latest judgment in the
case of A. Uma Rani vs. Registrar
Cooperative Societies and Others; 2004
(7) SCC 112 in paragraph 39, 40 and 70
has held as follows:

"39.
Regularization,
in
our
considered opinion, is not and cannot be
the mode of recruitment by any "State"
within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India or any body or
authority governed by a statutory Act or
the Rules framed thereunder. It is also
now well settled that an appointment
made in violation of the mandatory
provisions of the statute and in particular,
ignoring
the
minimum
educational
qualification
and
other
essential
qualification wold be wholly illegal. Such
illegality cannot be cured by taking
recourse to regularization."
"40. It is equally well settled that those
who come by back door should go
through that door."
1220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
"70. Yet again, recently in Ramakrishna
Kamat v. State of Karnataka this Court
rejected a similar plea for regularization
of services stating: (SCC pp.377-78, para
7)

"We repeatedly asked the learned
counsel for the appellants on what basis
or foundation in law the appellants made
their claim for regularization and under
what rules their recruitment was made so
as to govern their service conditions.
They were not in a position to answer
except saying that the appellants have
been working for quite some time in
various schools started pursuant to
resolutions passed by Zila Parishads in
view of the government orders and that
their cases need to be considered
sympathetically. It is clear from the order
of the learned Single Judge and looking to
the
very
directions
given,
a
very
sympathetic view was taken. We do not
find it either just or proper to show any
further sympathy in the given facts and
circumstances of the case. While being
sympathetic to the persons who come
before the court the courts cannot at the
same time be unsympathetic to the large
number of eligible persons waiting for a
long time in a long queue seeking
employment."

15. The aforesaid judgment has been
specifically approved in the case of
Mahendra L. Jain;(supra) 2005(1) SCC
639. The counsel for the petitioners has
not been able to demonstrate before the
Court that any procedure known to law
was ever followed for the purposes of
offering appointments to the petitioners
on daily wage basis. From the records,
which were produced before this Court by
the Additional Advocate General, it is
established that all the petitioners had
been appointed only by adopting the
policy of pick and choose at the sole
discretion of incumbent holding the office
at the relevant time. At the time of
appointments of the petitioners statutory
rules have not been followed. Under the
statutory rules, known as "The United
Provinces Legal Remembrancer's and
Law
Officers
Establishments
Rules,
1942", appointments to the inferior
establishment shall be made by direct
recruitment or by promotion of persons
already in the service in any government
office, in such manner as the appointing
authority may deem fit. Relevant rule 5(2)
is being quoted herein below:

"5.(2) Appointments to the inferior
establishment shall be made by direct
recruitment or by promotion of persons
already in the service of the Crown in any
government office, in such manner as the
appointing authority may deem fit."

16. Neither any appointment letters
have been brought on record nor the
manner in which the appointments were
made had been disclosed. In paragraph 2
of the writ petition only the dates, from
which the petitioners have been working
in the employment of respondent no. 2
establishment, have been disclosed. Noncompliance of the statutory provisions
regulating the appointments, violates
Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India as well as reservation policy
enforced for such appointments within the
State of U.P. which have been given go
by in the method of appointments of the
petitioners. The illegalities in that regard
are writ large on the records. In such
circumstances,
this
Court
has
no
hesitation
to
hold
that
the
initial
appointment of the petitioners itself was
de-hors any procedure known to law and
4 All] Sanjeev Sharma V. State of U.P. and others
1221
therefore cannot be a subject matter of
further
continuance
under
the
discretionary and equitable powers of this
Court
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India. This Court would
rather follow the dictum of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Gujrat
Agriculture University vs. Rathore Labhu
Bechar and others; 2001(3) SCC 574 and
therefore refuse the relief of regularization
to the petitioners based only on the plea of
long service rendered by them as a ClassIV employee since 1999.

17. So far as the plea of promissory
estoppels is concerned, counsel for the
petitioners could not demonstrate from
the records any promise said to have been
held out to the petitioners qua their
regularization. All the documents relied
upon by the counsel for the petitioners in
their writ petitions are mere agendas or
proposals, which are submitted from time
to time. There is no document on record,
which could establish that aforesaid
proposal/agendas fructified into a positive
decision of the competent authority to
regularize the services of daily wage
employees like the petitioners.

18. It is needless to point out that on
the insistence of the counsel for the
petitioners, this Court had also summoned
the original records pertaining to various
correspondences, which had been entered
into between the office of the Advocate
General and the State Government qua the
creation of posts in question. From the
records it is established that at no point of
time any assurance was held out to the
petitioners by any of the respondents for
regularization/absorption on creation of
necessary
number
of
posts.
The
petitioners have failed to establish any
promise having been held out to them on
the basis of the records. The petitioners
could not substantiated their case by any
documents available on record.

19. Even otherwise, counsel for the
petitioners has not been able to point out
as to how the petitioners have altered their
position to their detriment because of the
alleged promise, said to have been held by
the respondents, as alleged by the
petitioners. It is needless to point out that
for attracting the principles of promissory
estoppels,
it
is
necessary
for
the
petitioners to not only establish that a
promise so held out but also to establish
that the petitioners have altered their
position to their detriment because of the
promise so held out. Neither in the writ
petition nor otherwise there is any plea of
the
petitioners
having
altered
their
position to their detriment because of the
promise alleged to have been held out by
the respondents. Thus, on both the
grounds the plea of promissory estoppels,
as set up by the petitioners, is not
supported by any material and therefore
rejected. The legal principle reiterated in
the judgments relied upon by the counsel
for
the
petitioners
in
respect
of
promissory estoppels are not in dispute
and therefore are not being referred.

20. So far as the plea of adopting
different procedures for appointment in
establishment at Lucknow vis-Ã-vis the
appointments in the establishment at
Allahabad is concerned, the Court is of
the firm opinion that the said plea has
only been stated to be rejected. From the
facts, which have been disclosed on
behalf of the respondents namely the
number of valid applications received in
respect of 46 posts at Allahabad i.e. 1143
the decision taken to short-list the
applicants on the basis of written
1222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
examination before holding the interview
cannot be said to be arbitrary in any
manner. This Court is satisfied that the
procedure so adopted is fair and based on
different set of circumstances which come
into existence because of the large
number
of
applications
received
at
Allahabad. The decision taken by the
State respondents to hold a written
examination before holding interview for
the purposes of short-listing cannot be
said to be arbitrary and discriminatory in
any manner.

In view of the aforesaid, none of the
grounds raised on behalf of the petitioners
are tenable in the eyes of law. Writ
petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.07.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49225 of 2005

Shiv Devi

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.P. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ashok Srivastava
S.C.

U.P. Punchayat Raj Act 1947 Section 95
(1)(g)-readwith-U.P.
Panchayat
Raj
(Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and
Members) Enquiry Rules 1997-Rule-8Financial and administrative power of
Pradhan-ceased
by
the
District
Magistrate-No enquiry as per provisions
of Rules conducted for long spell of time
of 3 years-held-the authorities failed to
act
in
conformity
with
Statutory
provision-operation of impugned Order
Quashed-as the Pradhan are elected by
democratic process interference must be
in
strict
conformity
with
statutory
provision.

Held: Para 5 and 8

The period may not mandatory but still
the authority's are required to act under
law
with
all
promptness
in
the
proceedings
initiated
against
the
Pradhan under Section 95 (1)(g) proviso
of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act without
any uncalled for delay. It is to be kept in
mind
that
the
Pradhans
of
Gram
Panchayat are elected by a democratic
process, interference in powers of the
elected representatives of the people by
the administrative authorities must be in
strict conformity with the statutory
provision.

In such circumstances, this Court is
prima facie of the opinion that the
respondent-authorities have failed to act
in
conformity
with
the
statutory
provisions, by not getting a final enquiry
conducted
against
the
Pradhan
(petitioner), by a nominated officer
within reasonable time. Therefore, they
not be permitted to continue with the
ceasation of financial and administrative
powers of the Pradhan.
Case law discussed:
1999 (2) UPLBEC-718

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)

1. Heard Sri M.P. Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Ashok Srivastava, learned counsel for the
respondent no. 3 and learned Standing
counsel on behalf of respondent nos. 1
and 2.

Respondents are granted three weeks
time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder