# Rakesh Kumar Singh and others v. D.M., Maharajganj and others

- **Citation:** (2009) 2 ILRA 517
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-05-05
- **Bench:** S.U. Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rakesh-kumar-singh-and-others-v-d-m-maharajganj-and-others-41649
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226Appointment-Dismissal order passed by
District
Magistrate-without
disclosing
any
reason
for
dismissal-petitioners
were appointed by the D.D.O. inspite of
restraint order passed by D.M. without
following procedure for appointmentinterview
held
by
compelling
the
members of committee to affixed their
signature on plain paper-appointment
termed
as
fraudulent
based
on
extraneous
considerations-but
termination also made without following
the procedure-even no reason disclosedheld-illegal-reinstatment with direction
to work on their respective basic pay
without increments through out service
life-D.D.O. to pay one lace Rs. To each of
petitioners towards compensation, in
case of death amount shall be recorded
from the assets of erring D.D.O.

Held: Para 16

Accordingly, as held above, on the one
hand, all the appointments were utterly
illegal and fraudulent; the then D.D.O.,
Shiv Ram Bhatt made the appointment
for extraneous considerations and no
rule was followed. Appointments were
made in spite of restraint order by the
D.M. No interview was held for these
posts. Reasonable opportunity to apply
was not provided to the general public.
Accordingly, all the appointments were
illegal.
However,
I
find
that
the
cancellation order dated 16.01.1992 is
also not in accordance with law as it did
not give any reason and due to this
callousness of the then D.M., all the writ
petitioners got stay orders from this
Court.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1997 SC 399

## Text

2 All] Rakesh Kumar Singh and others V. D.M., Maharajganj and others
517
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.05.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.U. KHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.2167 of 1992,
2168 of 1992,5513 of 1992,2169 of
1992,2821of1992,10957 of 1992,24132 of
2003

Rakesh Kumar Singh and others

 ...Petitioners
Versus
District Magistrate, Maharajganj and
others

...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Suresh Chandra Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ashok Mehta

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226Appointment-Dismissal order passed by
District
Magistrate-without
disclosing
any
reason
for
dismissal-petitioners
were appointed by the D.D.O. inspite of
restraint order passed by D.M. without
following procedure for appointmentinterview
held
by
compelling
the
members of committee to affixed their
signature on plain paper-appointment
termed
as
fraudulent
based
on
extraneous
considerations-but
termination also made without following
the procedure-even no reason disclosedheld-illegal-reinstatment with direction
to work on their respective basic pay
without increments through out service
life-D.D.O. to pay one lace Rs. To each of
petitioners towards compensation, in
case of death amount shall be recorded
from the assets of erring D.D.O.

Held: Para 16

Accordingly, as held above, on the one
hand, all the appointments were utterly
illegal and fraudulent; the then D.D.O.,
Shiv Ram Bhatt made the appointment
for extraneous considerations and no
rule was followed. Appointments were
made in spite of restraint order by the
D.M. No interview was held for these
posts. Reasonable opportunity to apply
was not provided to the general public.
Accordingly, all the appointments were
illegal.
However,
I
find
that
the
cancellation order dated 16.01.1992 is
also not in accordance with law as it did
not give any reason and due to this
callousness of the then D.M., all the writ
petitioners got stay orders from this
Court.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1997 SC 399

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. These are unusual cases. Neither
appointments of the petitioners nor order
of cancellation of appointment is in
accordance
with
law.
Accordingly,
unusual relief has to be granted to the
petitioners. In the first writ petition, there
are six petitioners. In the second writ
petition, there are nine petitioners. In the
third writ petition, there is one petitioner.
In the fourth writ petition, there are two
petitioners. In the fifth writ petition, there
is one petitioner. In the sixth writ petition,
there are two petitioners. In the seventh
writ petition, there are six petitioners.

3. Petitioners of W.P. Nos.2167,
2168 and 5513 (first three writ petitions)
were appointed as clerks by District
Development
Officer
(D.D.O.),
Maharajganj on 13.01.1992. All the
appointments of class III & IV employees
made
in
the
office
of
District
Development during last six months were
cancelled by D.M. Maharajganj by order
518 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
dated 16.01.1992 which is only of two
lines. In the first line it was mentioned
that all the appointments on classes III &
IV posts in the office of District
Development during last six months were
cancelled therewith. In the second line, it
was mentioned that the all the employees
appointed in this manner would be treated
to have been relieved from the duty from
the date of the order. Absolutely, no
reason was mentioned in the termination
order and no opportunity of hearing was
provided.
However,
in
the
counter
affidavit, excellent reasons have been
provided. According to the allegations
made in the first three writ petitions,
advertisement for 12 clerks in the office
in question was issued on 02.12.1991 and
published in daily Hindi Newspaper
''Daink Jagaran' on 05.12.1991. In the
advertisement, it was provided that
applications could be filed by 07.12.1991
and interview would be held on 23rd and
24th December, 1991. Thereafter, another
advertisement was issued in the same
newspaper on 11.01.1992 to the effect
that interview, which was scheduled to be
held on 23rd and 24th December 1991,
would be held on 13th and 14th January
1992
in
the
office
of
District
Development
Officer,
Maharajganj.
Thereafter, it is alleged that interview was
held on 13.01.1992. Appointment letters
are Annexure-5. Appointment letters were
issued
by
D.D.O.,
Maharajganj
on
13.01.1992.

4. In W.P. Nos.2167, 2168 and
5513, petitioners, who are 16 in total,
claimed to have been appointed as clerk
against advertisement on 13.01.1992. It
has not been explained that how against
12 advertised posts, 16 persons could be
appointed.

5. As absolutely no reason was
given for cancelling the appointments,
hence this Court had no option except to
grant interim order in all the writ
petitions.

6. In the counter affidavit, a horrible
state of affairs has been disclosed. The
appointments made were a fraud played
by the then D.D.O., who was to retire on
31.01.1992. In the first advertisement,
which was published in the newspaper on
05.12.1991, the last date for receipt of
application was mentioned as 07.12.1991,
i.e. only three days' time was granted. The
Supreme Court in AIR 1997 SC 399
"Chander Chinar Bada Akhara Udasin
Society Vs. State of J. & K." has held
that even one weeks time for applying is
too short and arbitrary. Accordingly,
D.M. through order dated 19.12.1991
directed that time to file applications
should be extended till 30.12.1991,
however D.D.O. did not comply with that
and did not issue any corrigendum or
second advertisement. Accordingly, D.M.
through order dated 21.12.1991 cancelled
the selection process. Copy of the said
order is Annexure-1 to the counter
affidavit.

7. The D.M. was away from the
District from 10th to 18th January 1992.
Taking advantage of his absence, D.D.O.
issued
fresh
advertisement
in
the
newspaper on 11.01.1992 stating that the
interview which had been cancelled
would be held on 13rd and 14th January
1992. It is also stated that Munsif City,
Maharajganj through an interim order
passed in O.S. No.21 of 1992 on
13.01.1992 had stayed the interview,
which was scheduled to be held on
13.01.1992. On 13.01.1992, In-charge
D.M., Maharajganj issued a direction to
2 All] Rakesh Kumar Singh and others V. D.M., Maharajganj and others
519
D.D.O. not to hold the interview on 13th
and 14th January 1992. In spite of these
directions,
interview
was
held
on
13.01.1992. Typing test was not taken.
Apart from their names, no other
questions were asked from the applicants.
The members of the interview board gave
letters to the D.M. Maharajganj that
D.D.O. compelled them to participate in
the interview. On 13.01.1992, itself
appointment letters were issued and
selected candidates joined. Two of the
selected
candidates,
i.e.
Dharmnath
Prasad and Rajeev Kumar Srivastava on
the same date joined at another Vikas
Khand, which is at a distance of 45-50
kms. from the head office where interview
was held. It is also stated that the
selection committee was not formed in
accordance with relevant rules.

8. As interview was advertised to be
held on 13th and 14th hence there was no
occasion
to
declare
result,
issue
appointment letters and take joining
reports on 13th January 1992. The tearing
hurry proves only one thing, i.e. as fraud
had been exposed, there was large scale
hue and cry, In-charge D.M. and Munsif
had issued restraint orders hence D.D.O.
was not in a position to wait till 14th
otherwise his plan would have failed.

9. From the above, it is quite clear
that
the
D.D.O.
for
extraneous
considerations had already made the
selection and advertisement, interview
etc. were merely a show of fulfilment of
formalities. Three days' time to file
application is utterly illegal. D.M. had
already directed that selection process
should
be
cancelled.
D.M.
as
administrative head of the District has got
full authority to check illegal activities of
sub-ordinate officers.
10. However, the D.M. also did not
give any reason in the order dated
16.01.1992 cancelling the appointments.
If even the gist of the reasons given in the
counter affidavit had been mentioned in
the cancellation order, this Court would
not have granted the stay orders.

11. Local M.L.A. had written a letter
to the D.M., copy of which is annexed
along with the counter affidavit filed in
Writ Petitions No.2168 and 5513. In the
said complaint, it was stated that Sri Shiv
Ram Bhatt, D.D.O. wanted to appoint two
of his sons and it was for this reason that
in
the
advertisement
published
on
05.12.1991, applicants were not required
to give their fathers' name. This allegation
is substantiated by Annexure-3 to the writ
petition No.2168, which is copy of
advertisement. In the proforma of the
application given in the Newspaper
advertisement, there is no column for
father's name.

12. One of the members of selection
committee was Udai Chandra Prasad,
B.D.O., Lakshmipur, Maharajaganj. He
wrote a letter to D.M., Maharajganj on
20.01.1992 stating that as a Scheduled
Caste member of selection committee, he
was forced to participate in the interview
on 13.01.1992 along with D.D.O. and Dr.
Gilani. In Para-3 of the counter affidavit
filed in W.P. No.2168, it has been stated
that one of the members of selection
committee, Dr. Gilani stated that D.D.O.
got his signatures on blank papers and he
had not awarded any marks to any
candidate according to his performance
and ability.

As far as Writ Petition No.2169 of
1992 (IV petition) is concerned, it has
been filed by two petitioners. They claim
520 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
that they were appointed as messengers
on ad hoc basis in the office of B.D.O./
Shiswa and Lakshmipur on 15.10.1991.
They further allege that the said posts
were advertised (Para-10 of the writ
petition) and they appeared before the
selection committee on 13.01.1992 in the
office
of
D.D.O.
Thereafter,
it
is
mentioned in Para-13 that posts were
advertised on the notice board of the
office on 02.12.1991. Through order of
D.M.
dated
16.01.1992,
their
appointments
also
stood
cancelled.
Admittedly posts were not advertised in
any news papers, hence apart from the
reasons given in the earlier part of this
judgment for holding the appointments of
the petitioners of first three writ petitions
to be illegal, appointments of both the
petitioners of W.P. No.2169 of 1992 were
illegal on the additional ground that posts
were not advertised in the newspapers.

13. As far as Writ Petition No.2821
of 1992 (V petition) is concerned, its
petitioner has alleged that he was
appointed
as
driver
by
D.D.O.,
Maharajaganj on 12.04.1991 as daily
wager and thereafter appointment was
converted into ad hoc appointment by
order of D.D.O. dated 21.10.1991. In the
order dated 21.10.1991, there is a
reference to some earlier order dated
05.10.1991, copy of which has not been
annexed. In the said order, it is also
mentioned that petitioner was being
returned to Development Block, Brijman
Ganj and appointed as substitute as Block
Development Officer, Brijman Ganj had
intimated that no fund was available in
contingency fund for payment to Jeep
driver. It clearly means that there was no
vacant post of Jeep driver available.
Accordingly,
appointment
of
the
petitioner of this writ petition was utterly
illegal and it also stood cancelled by order
dated 16.01.1992.

14. As far as Writ Petition No.10957
of 1992 (VI petition) is concerned, both
the petitioners of the said writ petition
claim that they were appointed as
watchman, that they were working on ad
hoc basis since 17.07.1991, that regular
vacancies of watchmen were advertised
(Para-10).
However,
the
form
of
advertisement is not mentioned in the said
para. In Para-13, it is mentioned that on
02.12.1991, vacancies were notified on
the notice board of the office. It has
further been stated in Para-11 that
petitioners appeared before the selection
committee on 13.01.1992 in the office of
D.D.O., Maharajaganj and they were
issued
appointment
on
13.01.1992.
Annexure-4 to the writ petition is
appointment letter dated 01.10.1991 by
the D.D.O. Maharajaganj. Annexure-5 is
the appointment letter dated 13.01.1992.
It also stood set aside by order dated
16.01.1992. As the posts were not
advertised in the newspaper, hence
appointment was also illegal on this
additional ground.

15. As far as Writ Petition No.24132
of 2003 (VII petition) is concerned, it has
been filed by the same petitioners, who
had filed Writ Petition No.2167 of 1992.
Writ Petition No.2167 of 1992 was
dismissed as infructuous on 19.04.2002.
Thereafter, services of the petitioners
were terminated on 08.05.2003 on the
ground that writ petition No.2167 of 1992
had
been
dismissed.
Order
dated
08.05.2003 has been challenged through
writ petition No.24132 of 2003. However
Writ Petition No.2167 of 1992 was
restored afterwards and the same is also
being decided through this judgment.
2 All] Bachchu Ram Singh and another V. Addl. Commissioner (J.) and others
521
16. Accordingly, as held above, on
the one hand, all the appointments were
utterly illegal and fraudulent; the then
D.D.O., Shiv Ram Bhatt made the
appointment
for
extraneous
considerations and no rule was followed.
Appointments were made in spite of
restraint order by the D.M. No interview
was held for these posts. Reasonable
opportunity to apply was not provided to
the general public. Accordingly, all the
appointments were illegal. However, I
find that the cancellation order dated
16.01.1992 is also not in accordance with
law as it did not give any reason and due
to this callousness of the then D.M., all
the writ petitioners got stay orders from
this Court.

17. Accordingly, writ petitions are
disposed of with following directions:

18. All the petitioners must be
permitted to continue to work on the posts
on which they were appointed until they
attain the age of superannuation. However
they must be paid the salary at the lowest
level of the same pay scale on which they
were appointed. They must not be entitled
for any increment or any revision of pay
subsequently affected. Petitioners of the
first three writ petitions were appointed in
the pay scale Rs.950-1500/-. Accordingly,
they must be continued to be paid only the
basic pay of Rs.950/- basic without any
increment or benefit of revision of pay
apart from dearness allowance admissible
on Rs.950/- pay. No other allowances
shall be given to them. They shall not be
entitled for any promotion. If any
promotion has already been granted, the
same
shall
stand
withdrawn
with
immediate effect. They shall not be
entitled for any retiral benefit apart from
the amount which they may have
contributed
towards
provident
fund.
However, salaries and other benefits paid
to the petitioners till date shall not be
refundable.

19. Sri Shiv Ram Bhatt, the then
D.D.O. is liable to pay damages of Rs.1
lac for each of the petitioners (total Rs.21
lacs). This amount shall be recovered
from him like arrears of land revenue. If
he has died, the amount shall be recovered
from the property left behind by him.
Recovery shall positively be made by the
Collector concerned within four months
and the amount shall be deposited in the
government treasury. The other two
members of selection committee are also
liable to pay Rs.25,000/- each per
petitioner as damages to the State (5.25
lacs each) as they were equal partners in
illegal design of D.D.O., Sri Shiv Ram
Bhatt. . The said amount shall also be
recovered from them in the same manner.

20. Compliance report shall be filed
within six months.

21. Office is directed to supply a
copy of this judgment to learned Chief
Standing Counsel within a week.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.05.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.P. MEHROTRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1671 of 2006

Bachchu Ram Singh & another ...Petitioner
Versus
Additional
Commissioner
(Judicial)
Allahabad Division & others ...Respondents