# Harveer Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2007) 2 ILRA 609
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-07-17
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35702 of 1996
- **Bench:** Vineet Saran
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/harveer-singh-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40967
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Salaryafter selection as Sub Inspector of
Police-joined
training-stipend
given
Rs.1000/- per month during training
period-whether can salary be paid during
training period, prior to appointment?
held-'No' salary can be paid only after
joining the service and not prior to that.

Held: Para 7

Salary can be paid only to such person
who is appointed against some post,
which can be only after completing the
training. The payment of salary prior to
610 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
appointment is not conceived of in
service jurisprudence. Only stipend or
honorarium can be paid during such
training period, and not salary.

## Text

2 All] Harveer Singh and others V. State of U.P. and others
609
by the contesting respondents that they
did not substantiate their claim for
regularization or salary at par with regular
employees on the basis of any statutory
provision but set up their entire claim on
the basis of various legal principles
applies by the Apex Court in the cases of
"workmen" of different bodies. Section 4
of the Act also shows that a person can
file a claim petition before the Tribunal, if
he has been dealt with by the employer in
a manner which is not in conformity with
any contract or in the case of a servant of
a local authority or statutory corporation
with Article 16 of the Constitution or the
Rules and Regulations having force under
any Act or legislature constituting such
authority or corporation. The contesting
respondents neither claim that they have
any contract with the petitioners i.e.
NOIDA and have not been dealt with in
conformity with such contract nor have
contended any violation of Rules and
Regulations having force under any Act
of Legislature constituting such authority
or corporation. It is true that vaguely, for
the purpose of regularization, violation of
Article 14 and 16 has been pleaded but
the said pleading is absolutely vague and
has not been substantiated at all. The
contesting respondents have clearly said
that they are only muster roll daily wage
employees. Being daily wage employees
on muster roll the contesting respondents
are admittedly workmen as defined under
1947 Act. Therefore on the pleadings of
the contesting respondents before the
Tribunal, it is evident that the said
application was not maintainable due to
the absence of grounds on which the
application under Section 4 could have
been filed.

25. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, we hold that the claim
petitions filed by respondents under
Section
4
of
the
Act
were
not
maintainable before the Tribunal and
therefore the order impugned in the writ
petition is wholly without jurisdiction and
cannot be sustained. The writ petitions
therefore succeed and allowed. The order
of the Tribunal dated 8.11.1998 impugned
in the writ petitions are quashed and the
claim petitions consequently shall also
stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
Petition allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.07.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35702 of 1996

Harveer Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Krishna Agarwal
Sri Satya Prakash

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.R. Singh
S.C.

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Salaryafter selection as Sub Inspector of
Police-joined
training-stipend
given
Rs.1000/- per month during training
period-whether can salary be paid during
training period, prior to appointment?
held-'No' salary can be paid only after
joining the service and not prior to that.

Held: Para 7

Salary can be paid only to such person
who is appointed against some post,
which can be only after completing the
training. The payment of salary prior to
610 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
appointment is not conceived of in
service jurisprudence. Only stipend or
honorarium can be paid during such
training period, and not salary.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. The short question involved in
this case is as to whether the candidates,
who were selected and appointment on
the post of Sub Inspector, would be
entitled for payment of salary for the
period during which they had undergone
training for such appointment.

Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.

2. The petitioners appeared in the
selection process held in the year 19871988 for appointment on the post of Sub
Inspector. Initially the petitioners were
placed in the waiting list and thereafter
they were sent for training only in the
year 1994. During the period of training,
they were paid stipend of Rs.1,000/-per
month. After successfully completing
their
training,
they
were
given
appointment as Sub Inspectors under
Regulation
406
of
U.P.
Police
Regulations and only thereafter they were
paid their regular salary. The petitioners
had filed representations for payment of
salary for the period of training. Since
their representations were not decided,
they filed a writ petition, which was
disposed of with a direction to the
respondent-authorities to decide the same.
By the impugned order 30.4.1996, the
representations of the petitioners have
been rejected. Challenging the said order,
this writ petition has been filed.

3. During the pendency of this writ
petition, on 8.6.1998 the respondents had
issued an order directing salary to be paid
for the period of training for appointment
to the post of Sub Inspector. The said
order
was
prospective
and
not
retrospective. However, subsequently by
an order dated 17.9.2002 it was clarified
that only stipend, and not salary, would be
paid to a person who undergoes training.
By means of an amendment application
the petitioners have also challenged the
subsequent order dated 17.9.2002.

4. At the outset, it may be stated that
the order dated 17.9.2002 is not very
material for the purpose of decision of
this case as the earlier order was only
prospectively
applicable
from
1998
onwards,
and
the
petitioners
had
undergone training much prior to that in
1994.

5. The admitted position is that no
appointment was given to the petitioners
prior to being sent for training. An
appointment is given only to such
candidate who successfully undergoes
training and then a seniority list is
prepared on the basis of the marks
obtained during the training period. There
could be a situation where a candidate
does
not
successfully
complete
his
training and thus does not even get
appointment as Sub Inspector. In such a
case if the direction to pay salary for the
period of training is made, it would be a
case where he gets salary without being
ever appointed as Sub Inspector. There
could be another situation where a person
does
not
successfully
complete
his
training in the stipulated two years period
and has to continue his training for
another year or two. Then also it would be
totally unjustified to direct for payment of
salary for the training period in favour of
a person who lacks merit and is unable to
complete his training within time.
2 All] The Controller of Examination University Allahabad V. Rajneesh Shukla
611
6. It is not disputed that the selection
of Sub Inspector is made on existing and
anticipated vacancies. Thus there could
also be a situation where for 100 existing
vacancies, there are 150 candidates
selected, as such selection is also against
anticipated vacancies. In such a case, if
salary is directed to be paid for training
period, then salary would have to be paid
to more persons than the existing posts,
which is not possible.

7. Salary can be paid only to such
person who is appointed against some
post, which can be only after completing
the training. The payment of salary prior
to appointment is not conceived of in
service jurisprudence. Only stipend or
honorarium can be paid during such
training period, and not salary.

8. For the foregoing reasons, this
Court is of the view that in the facts of
this case, salary cannot be paid for the
period of training, which is prior to
appointment on the post of sub inspector,
and as such, the order impugned in this
writ petition does not call for interference.

9. Accordingly, this writ petition is
dismissed.

No order as to cost.
---------
APPEALATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.01.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S. RAFAT ALAM, J.
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Special Appeal No.5 of 2097

The Controller of Examination ,Allahabad
University and another ...Appellants
Versus.
Rajneesh Shukla

...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri A.B.L. Gour
Sri Saurabh Gour

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Amitabh Tripathi

Constitution of India , Art 226- Education
-use of unfair means- chapter XXVIII
clause 1.2(A) 1.2E- petitioner appearing
L.L.B. Ist year examination- found- some
numbers written on the back side of the
admit card- may be phone number-but
not said to be related to subject matter-
decision of authorities- held- highly
arbitrary and absurd.

Held: Para 11

Existence of material related to the
subject of the examination is absent.
When a candidate is found in possession
of any unauthorized material which has
no bearing or connection with the
subject of examination, in that event it
cannot
be
held
that
the
material
recovered
from
his
possession
is
unauthorized.
Case law discussed:
1994(1) SCC 6,
2003(3) SCC 59,
Spl
Appeal
No.
1017-2006
decided
on
18.09.06.
AIR 1970 SC 1269