# Rakesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2001) 1 ILRA 260
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000-06-30
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rakesh-kumar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-39709
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
260
sole bread earner of the family. Such
appointments
are
made
purely
on
humanitarian consideration with an object
to provide the family some sources of
livelihood. The appointment is given by
making a departure from the general
provisions for making appointment to a
post. It is in the nature of exception to the
general provision. It cannot be treated as
creating a rights which could be enforced
at
will.
The
petitioner
in
his
representation
dated
30.6.2000
(Annexure-2) clearly stated that he has
accepted the appointment on the post of
junior clerk. Learned counsel for the
petitioner failed to show any rule that
entitles a dependant who has been
appointed can claim a change of post
either in the same or higher grade. In
absence of any rule once the petitioner
joined on class III post of junior clerk, he
could not claim the post of Assistant
Teacher. The decision in Sanjeev Kumar
Dubey (supra) is of no help to the
petitioner. Petitioner is not entitled to any
relief.

5. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not
find any merit in this petition.

This petition fails and is accordingly
dismissed.
Petition Dismissed.

$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' 129(0%(5
'$7(' $//$+$%$' 129(0%(5
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 6+<$0$/ .80$5 6
7+( +21·%/( 6+<$0$/ .80$5 6(1 &-
(1 &-
7+( +21·%/( 68'+,5 1$5$,1 -
7+( +21·%/( 68'+,5 1$5$,1 -

)LUVW $SSHDO )URP 2UGHU 1R RI

2ULHQWDO
)LUH

*HQHUDO
,QVXUDQFH
&RPSDQ\
/LPLWHG
0DKDWPD
*DQGKL
5RDG .DQSXU «2SS 3DUW\ $SSHOODQW
9HUVXV
6PW 1LUPDOD 'HYL
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH $SSHOODQW
6KUL $% 6DUDQ
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6KUL 59 *XSWD
6KUL 3UDGHHS &KDQGUD
6KUL 0&6ULYDVWDYD

0RWRU 9HKLFOHV $FW 6 8QOHVV
SHUPLVVLRQ LV REWDLQHG XQGHU VHFWLRQ
RI WKH 0RWRU 9HKLFOHV $FW WKH
LQVXUDQFH FRPSDQ\ FDQQRW ILOH DSSHDO
DJDLQVW WKH DZDUG RI 7ULEXQDO RQ PHULWV
RI WKH FODLP +HOG LQ SDUD
+HOG 7KH DUJXPHQW WKDW WKH FODLP LV QRW
FRYHUHG E\ WKH SROLF\ LV SXUHO\ EDVHG RQ
PHULWV DQG DV VXFK WKH GHFLVLRQ RI WKH
VXSUHPH FRXUW DSSOLHV ZLWK IXOO IRUFH

By the Court

1. We have heard Sri A.B. Saran
learned Advocate for the appellant we are
of the view that in view of the decision of
the Supreme Court in Shankarayya and
another vs. United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. And another AIR 1998 SC 2968,
wherein it has been held that uncles
permission is obtained under Section 170
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, The
insurance company cannot file appeal
1All] Rakesh Kumar Singh V. State of U.P. and others
261
against the award of Tribunal on
merits of the claim. In the instant appeal
the claim is based purely on merits and, as
such we are of the view that the aforesaid
judgement
of
the
Supreme
Court
specifically applies in the instant case.
The appeal is held to be non-maintainable
and is liable to be dismissed.

2. In the matter of same Insurance
Company
(The
Oriental
Insurance
Company Limited) a Division Bench of
Calcutta High Court of which one of us
(Hon'ble S.K. Sen, C.J.) was party , in the
case of Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs Gurudial Singh AIR 2000
Calcutta 226, look the same view
following the aforesaid decision of the
Supreme
Court
in
the
case
of
Shankarayya (supra). We do not find any
reason to take different view in the instant
case.

3. Mr. Saran learned Advocate for
the appellant has , however, argued that
the claim is not covered by the policy. We
are of the view that this argument is
purely based on merits and such the
decision of the Supreme Court noted
above applies with full force.

4. In view of the above, the instant
appeal is held to be non-maintainable and
is according dismissed.
Appeal Dismissed.

25,*,
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' '(&(0%(5
'$7(' $//$+$%$' '(&(0%(5
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( %,12' .80$5 52< -
7+( +21·%/( %,12' .80$5 52< -
7+( +21·%/( $.<2* -
7+( +21·%/( $.<2* -
&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

5DNHVK .XPDU 6LQJK
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 WKURXJK 'LUHFWRU RI 0HGLFDO
+HDOWK 'LUHFWRUDWH 6ZDVWK\D %KDZDQ
83 /XFNQRZ RWKHUV
«2SS 3DUWLHV
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 0DOD\D . 6KXNOD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6KUL 6DEKDMHHW <DGDY
6KUL 3. %HVDULD

&RQVWLWXWLRQ
RI
,QGLD
$UWLFOH

±
&HUWLRUDUL DQG 0DQGDPXV :KHQ WR EH
LVVXHG
+HOG ± 3DUD
+HDOWK\
EDELHV
DUH
LQYDOXDEOH
DQG
SUHFLRXV QDWLRQDO UHVRXUFH DQG WR KDYH D
μ+HDOWK\ 1DWLRQ¶ ZLOO UHPDLQ D GUHDP LI
H[SHFWDQW PRWKHUV DUH QRW SURYLGHG DOO
SRVVLEOH
DQG
SURSHU
μSUHQDWDO¶
FDUH
)URP WKH IDFWV VWDWHG LQ WKH SHWLWLRQ
ZKLFK KDYH EHHQ XQUHEXWWHG FRXSOHG
ZLWK
WKH
FLUFXPVWDQFHV
WKDW
WKH
UHVSRQGHQWV KDYH QR GHIHQFH WR RIIHU
LQVSLWH RI UHSHDWHG RSSRUWXQLWLHV EHLQJ
JLYHQ ZH DUH RI WKH FRQVLGHUHG RSLQLRQ
WKDW KXJH SXEOLF PRQH\ KDYLQJ EHHQ
LQYHVWHG LQ FRQVWUXFWLQJ
μ1HZ +RVSLWDO
&RPSOH[¶ ZLWK PRGHUQ IDFLOLWLHV VKRXOG
QRW EH DOORZHG WR JR LQ YDLQ 7KH PRQH\
VSHQW E\ WKH *RYHUQPHQW RQ EHKDOI RI
WKH SXEOLF PXVW QRW EH ZDVWHG DQG WKH
FRPSOH[ 1HZ +RVSLWDO PXVW EH XWLOL]HG
IRUWKZLWK SDUWLFXODUO\ ZKHQ WKHUH LV QR
H[SODQDWLRQ ZKDWVRHYHU IRU QRW FDUU\LQJ
WKH SURMHFW WR LWV ORJLFDO HQG
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
262
By the Court

The prayer contained in the present
petition are to the effect that this Court
may be pleased to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari and
quash
the
impugned
orders
dated
13.10.1999 and 2.11.1999 annexures-1
and 2 to the petition) and a writ of
mandamus direction the respondents not
to interfere with the proper functioning of
the Post Partum Centre in the new District
Hospital (Ram Prasad Bismil District
Hospital), Shahjahanpur apart from other
usual relief's.

2. Annexur-1 to the petition is the
letter from the letter from the Director
General
Rashtriya
Karyakram
Anushrawan Evem Mulyankan, Family
Welfare
Directorate,
U.P.
Lucknow
addressed
to
the
Chief
Medical
Superintendent, Shahjahanpur requiring
him not to shift the old centre to the new
building and maintain status quo in
compliance to earlier order dated
7.7.1999. Annexure-2 to the petition is an
order of Chief Medical Superintendent,
District
Women's
Hospital,
Shahjahanpur, referring to the order dated
13.10.1999 of the State Government,
requiring the staff of the Centre to
continue to work at their old place and
deposit the articles issued to them from
District Women's Hospital.

3. The petitioner Rakesh Kumar
Singh has approached this Court by filing
this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India alleging inter alia,
amongst others, that being resident of
District Shahjahanpur he has interest in
the subject matter of this petition; a Post
Partem Centre (Zila Prasawaottar Kendra)
in its existing building called 'Old District
Hospital, was to be shifted with Ram
Prasad Bismil District Hospital to a new
complex having all modern facilities,
situate over about 100 Hectares of lan
raised at a cost of Rs. Crores; after said
building is constructed and equipped, the
orders
impugned
as
contained
in
Annexures-1 & 2 were passed to keep the
matter
in
'stalemate'
and
as
a
consequence thereof the entire project has
been directed to be kept in abeyance so as
to maintain 'status quo'; the impugned
orders have been passed with ulterior
motive at the behest of certain persons
prompted and motivated by extraneous
consideration having no concern with the
general interest of the public and purely
on the ground of their own personal
vested interests; in case the Post Partem
Centre is transferred to the new hospital,
public at large will have the advantage of
availing modern facilities like Ultra
Sound etc. besides 'expectant mothers
having the advantage of emergency
services.

The petitioner has attempted to high
light the importance of health of future
generation of the country and of healthy
'nation' for general welfare in our society.

4. This petition was filed on
2.12.1999. A Division Bench granted
three weeks time to the respondents for
filing counter affidavit. The case was
listed on 23.12.1999 but no counter
affidavit was filed (see office report of the
date on the order sheet). On7.4.2000 a
Division Bench of this Court again
granted time and required the respondents
to submit an explanation in the form of
report for non action in the matter. The
case was, thereafter, listed on two
occasions but no counter affidavit has
been filed till date. It may be recalled that
1All] Committee of Management and another V. D.I.O.S., Allahabad and others
263
on 7.4.2000 the learned Standing
Counsel (Sri Sabhajeet Yadav, Advocate)
was required to intimate the order of the
Court to the Secretary, Department of
Health, Government of U.P. for taking
appropriate
action.

None
of
the
respondents (including Secretary of the
Department concerned) have cared to file
counter affidavit or submit their report as
stated by the learned Standing Counsel.
The learned Standing Counsel further
orally informs this Court that he has no
instruction in the matter despite repeated
intimation and communication to the
respondents.

5. Heard Sri Malay K. Shukla, the
learned counsel for the petitioner, who in
the peculiar facts and circumstances
prayed to allow this writ petition, as well
as Sri Sabhajeet Yadav, learned Standing
Counsel and perused the record.

6. Healthy babies are invaluable and
precious national resource, and to have a
'Healthy Nation' will remain a dream if
expectant mothers are not provided all
possible and proper 'pre-natal' care.
From the facts stated in the petition,
which have been unrebutted, coupled with
the circumstances that the respondents
have no defence to offer inspite of
repeated opportunities being given, we are
of the considered opinion that huge public
money
having
been
invested
in
constructing 'New Hospital Complex'
with modern facilities should not be
allowed to go in vain. The money spent
by the Government on behalf of the
public must not be wasted and the
complex (New Hospital) must be utilised
forthwith; particularly when there is no
explanation whatsoever for not carrying
the project to its logical end.

7. Accordingly, the orders dated
13.10.1999 and 2.11.1999 as contained is
Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition
being
arbitrary
and
without
any
reasonable justification are quashed. The
respondents are directed to ensure shifting
of the Post Partem Centre forthwith. The
writ petition stands allowed.

8. No order as to cost.

9. The office is directed to hand over
a copy of this order within on week to Sri
Shabhajeet
Yadav,
learned
Standing
Counsel, for its intimation to the authority
concerned.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 906$+$, -
7+( +21·%/( 906$+$, -
&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

&RPPLWWHH RI 0DQDJHPHQW «3HWLWLRQHUV
9HUVXV
'LVWULFW ,QVSHFWRU RI 6FKRROV $OODKDEDG
DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL $. 7HZDUL
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6KUL 6' .DXWDO\KLD
6KUL 9LPOHVK 6ULYDVWDYD
6KUL $% 6LQJK

,QWHUPHGLDWH
(GXFDWLRQ
$FW

6HFWLRQ * 6XVSHQVLRQ RI 3ULQFLSDO
RI
,QWHUPHGLDWH
&ROOHJH0DQDJHPHQW
VHQG
IRU
DSSURYDO',26
GLVDSSURYHG
ZLWK
VD\LQJ
FRQWUDU\
WR
5XOHV
1R
UHDVRQV UHFRUGHG DV WR ZKLFK RI WKH
SURYLVLRQV
KDYH
EHHQ
YLRODWHGRUGHU