# Siwach & others v. Union of India &

- **Citation:** (2010) 3 ILRA 1347
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-12-07
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56644 of 2010
- **Bench:** Dilip Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/siwach-others-v-union-of-india-41800
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Act, 2005-appointment of Rojgar SewakClause 4 of G.O. 25.08.2010-requiring
fresh Selection of those who have
completed
3
years-although
initial
appointment
for
one
year-extended
subject to satisfactory work-the person
who initially appointed ofter facing
selection-having experience-can not be
compelled to face fresh selection-to this
extent G.O. Of 25.8.10 set a side.

Held: Para 28

It is, therefore, not possible, in view of
the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme
Court to uphold the policy of the
Government
contained
in
the
Government Order dated 25th August,
2010
regarding
holding
of
fresh
1348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
selections for appointment of Rojgar
Sewak after every three years. The
appointment
of
the
Rojgar
Sewaks
should be continued even after they have
worked for three years, though one year
at a time, subject to satisfactory work as
was the procedure adopted prior to the
expiry of three years of service.
Case law discussed:
2003 (21) LCD 1383; Writ Petition No.35653 of
2003; 2010 (7) ADJ 169; 2008 (7) ADJ 188;
(1985) 4 SCC 43; (2009) 6 SCC 611; AIR 2001
SC 1447; (2001) 8 SCC 491 ;( 2003) 5 SCC

## Text

3 All] Shiv Manorath Shukla and others V. State of U.P. and others
1347
Tribunal Act, 2007, such cause of action
has to be adjudicated upon in the first
instance by the Tribunal. It is only after
the decision of the Tribunal, that the
matter would come to the High Court
under Article 226/227 of the Constitution
of India.

6. In view of this, it has been laid
down that the Writ Petitions pending
before this Court, wherein, the cause of
action is such as would fall within the
jurisdiction
of
the
Tribunal
after
enforcement
of
the
Armed
Forces
Tribunal
Act,
2007,
would
stand
transferred
to
the
Tribunal
for
adjudication in view of Section 34 of the
said Act.

7. The above decision of the learned
Single Judge has been followed by the
Division Benches of this Court in the
following decisions :

(A) Order dated 22-03-2010 passed
in Civil Misc. Writ No. 15363 of 2007
[(Late) Brig. (Retd.) Gaj Raj Singh
Siwach & others Vs. Union of India &
others], since reported in 2010 (4) ADJ
251 (DB).

(B) Order dated 28-10-2010 passed
in Special Appeal Defective No. 218 of
2006 [Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Union of
India & another].

8. The cause of action in the present
case, as noted above, is evidently such as
falls within the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal after enforcement of the Armed
Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.

9. Hence, in view of the above
decisions, it is apparent that the present
Writ Petition is to be transferred to the
Tribunal under Section 34 of the Armed
Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.

10. We direct accordingly.

The Registry is directed to take
appropriate steps in this regard.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.12.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DILIP GUPTA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56644 of 2010

Shiv Manorath Shukla and others

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri Vijendra Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Suman Sirohi (S.C.)
C.S.C.

National Rural Employment Guarantee
Act, 2005-appointment of Rojgar SewakClause 4 of G.O. 25.08.2010-requiring
fresh Selection of those who have
completed
3
years-although
initial
appointment
for
one
year-extended
subject to satisfactory work-the person
who initially appointed ofter facing
selection-having experience-can not be
compelled to face fresh selection-to this
extent G.O. Of 25.8.10 set a side.

Held: Para 28

It is, therefore, not possible, in view of
the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme
Court to uphold the policy of the
Government
contained
in
the
Government Order dated 25th August,
2010
regarding
holding
of
fresh
1348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
selections for appointment of Rojgar
Sewak after every three years. The
appointment
of
the
Rojgar
Sewaks
should be continued even after they have
worked for three years, though one year
at a time, subject to satisfactory work as
was the procedure adopted prior to the
expiry of three years of service.
Case law discussed:
2003 (21) LCD 1383; Writ Petition No.35653 of
2003; 2010 (7) ADJ 169; 2008 (7) ADJ 188;
(1985) 4 SCC 43; (2009) 6 SCC 611; AIR 2001
SC 1447; (2001) 8 SCC 491 ;( 2003) 5 SCC
437.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.)

1. The petitioners, who were
appointed as Panchayat Mitras in District
Kaushambi in December, 2006, have filed
this petition for quashing that portion of
paragraph 4 of the Government Order
dated 25th August, 2010 which provides
that where Gram Panchayat Rojgar
Sewaks have completed three years of
working, fresh selection proceedings
should be undertaken for appointment of
Rojgar Sewaks in accordance with the
Government Order dated 23rd November,
2007. A further prayer has been made for
restraining the respondents from taking
any action in pursuance to the aforesaid
paragraph 4 of the Government Order.

2. The Panchayat Raj Department of
the
State
Government
issued
a
Government Order dated 3rd July, 2006
notifying a Scheme for appointment of
Panchayat Mitras in Gram Panchayats
under the National Rural Employment
Guarantee Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred
to as the ''Act') in twenty two districts
including District Kaushambi. The said
Government Order dated 3rd July, 2006
provides for appointment of a Panchayat
Mitra in each Gram Panchayat of the
specified
districts
to
provide
administrative
assistance
for
implementing
the
National
Rural
Employment
Guarantee
Scheme
(hereinafter referred to as the ''Scheme').
The appointment is to be made on
contractual basis for a period of one year
or till the continuance of the Scheme,
whichever is earlier, on a monthly
honorarium of Rs.2000/-. However, after
the expiry of the period of one year, fresh
selection is required to be made but if the
work of the Panchayat Mitra during this
period of one year is found to be
satisfactory, then the Gaon Sabha can
pass a resolution for renewal of the
contract for a period of one year at a time
subject to the maximum period of two
years.

3. On 23rd November, 2007, the
State
Government
issued
another
Government
Order
changing
the
designation of Panchayat Mitra to Gram
Rojgar Sewak and such appointments
stood transferred from the Panchayat Raj
Department
to
the
Gram
Vikas
Department of the State Government. The
other conditions substantially remained
the same.

4. It is on the basis of the
Government Order dated 3rd July, 2006
that the District Magistrate, Kaushambi
issued a Circular dated 23rd July, 2006 to
all the Block Development Officers of the
District for inviting applications for
appointment of Panchayat Mitras. The
petitioners applied for appointment as
Panchayat Mitra and they were appointed
on various dates in December, 2006.
Subsequently their designation stood
altered to Gram Rojgar Sewaks in terms
of the Government Order dated 23rd
November, 2007 and the contract of
appointment of each of the petitioners was
3 All] Shiv Manorath Shukla and others V. State of U.P. and others
1349
also renewed one year at a time for two
years. Thus, they have completed three
years as Panchayat Mitras/Gram Rojgar
Sewaks.

5. Paragraph 4 of the Government
Order dated 25th August, 2010 issued
with regard to employment of Gram
Rojgar
Sewaks
provides
that
on
completion of three years of working,
fresh selection proceedings shall be
undertaken
in
accordance
with
the
Government Order dated 23rd November,
2007 for appointment of Gram Rojgar
Sewaks in which the existing Rojgar
Sewaks can also apply and preference
shall be given to them if their working is
found to be satisfactory.

6. The petitioners claim to be
working as Gram Rojgar Sewaks and
because of the stipulation contained in
paragraph 4 of the Government Order
dated 25th August, 2010 apprehend that
their services shall be terminated followed
by fresh selection proceedings.

7. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioners
assisted by Sri Vijendra Tripathi, learned
counsel submitted that paragraph 4 of the
Government Order dated 23rd November,
2007, in so far as it provides for fresh
selections, is arbitrary as according to him
no objective shall be achieved by holding
fresh selection and the Gram Rojgar
Sewaks who have been continuing for
three years should be permitted to
continue in the same manner in which
their appointments were earlier renewed
on
finding
their
services
to
be
satisfactory. The submission of the
learned Senior Counsel is that there is no
necessity for holding fresh selections after
every three years and that such a
procedure introduces an element of
uncertainty in regard to their service and
gives room for nepotism and corruption.
In support of his contention he has placed
reliance upon the decision of this Court in
Chandra Kishore & Ors. Vs. State of
U.P. & Ors., 2003 (21) LCD 1383 which
was followed by this Court in Writ
Petition No.35653 of 2003 (Manoj
Kumar Rastogi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
& Ors.) decided on 28th October, 2003.

8.

Sri
V.K.
Singh,
learned
Additional Advocate General for the State
of U.P. has, however, contended that the
petitioners have no vested right to
continue even after three years and
paragraph 4 of the Government Order
dated 25th August, 2010 does not suffer
from any illegality since under the
Government Order dated 23rd November,
2007 maximum period for which a Rojgar
Sewak could be appointed on contract
basis
is
three
years
and
by
the
Government Order dated 25th August,
2010 only a benefit has been conferred
upon them to participate in fresh selection
if
their
working
is
found
to
be
satisfactory. In support of his contention
he has placed reliance upon the Division
Bench judgment of this Court in Smt.
Geeta Devi Vs. Uma Shanker Yadav &
Ors., 2010 (7) ADJ 169.

9. I have carefully considered the
submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties.

10. Section 3 of the Act provides for
guarantee
of
rural
employment
to
households. It stipulates that the State
Government shall provide to every
household
whose
adult
members
volunteer to do unskilled manual work not
less than one hundred days of such work
1350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
in a calender year in accordance with the
Scheme framed under the Act. The State
Government has to, under Section 4 of the
Act, make a Scheme within one year from
the date of the commencement of the Act.
Under Section 13 of the Act, the
Panchayats at the district, intermediate
and village level shall be the principal
authorities
for
planning
and
implementation of the Scheme made
under the Act. Section 15 of the Act
provides for appointment of a Programme
Officer for every Panchayat at the
intermediate level who has to assist the
Panchayat in
the
discharge
of
its
functions. Section 18 of the Act provides
that the State Government shall make
available to the District Programme
Coordinator and the Programme Officer
necessary staff and technical support as
may be necessary for the effective
implementation of the Scheme.

11. The Government Order dated
3rd
July,
2006,
accordingly,
made
provisions for appointment of a Panchayat
Mitra in each Gram Panchayat to provide
administrative
assistance
for
implementation of the Scheme. Paragraph
1 of the said Government Order provides
for the minimum eligibility requirements,
while
paragraph
2
enumerates
the
procedure for selection. The applications
have
to
be
placed
before
the
Administrative Committee of the Gram
Panchayat
which
shall
select
the
Panchayat Mitras on merit on the basis of
the average percentage of marks obtained
by the candidates at the High School and
Intermediate level and thereafter details of
the selected candidates are forwarded to
the committee headed by the District
Magistrate. The appointment is made for
a period of one year on contractual basis
and fresh selection has to take place after
the expiry of the period of one year but if
after the expiry of the said period of one
year, it is found that the work of the
Panchayat Mitra is satisfactory, then his
contract can be renewed for a further
period of one year at a time subject to
maximum of two renewals.

12. The petitioners were selected as
Panchayat Mitras in December, 2006
under the Government Order dated 3rd
July, 2006 for a period of one year and as
their work was found to be satisfactory,
their appointments were renewed for a
period of one year and subsequently for
one
more
year.
In
terms
of
the
Government Order dated 23rd December,
2007, they were designated as Gram
Rojgar Sewak. Under the Government
Order dated 3rd July, 2006 and 23rd
November, 2007, the maximum period for
which they can continue as Panchayat
Mitra is three years and, therefore, their
appointment came to an end in December,
2009 but they have continued to work as
Panchayat Mitras.

13. The grievance of the petitioners
is with regard to paragraph 4 of the
Government Order dated 25th August,
2010 which provides for fresh selection of
Gram Rojgar Sewaks after the expiry of
three years. It is the contention of the
petitioners that they should be permitted
to continue, if their work is found to be
satisfactory, in the same manner as they
were permitted to continue earlier and a
fresh selection should not be resorted to.

14. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioners has
placed reliance upon the decision of this
Court in Chandra Kishore (supra) in
support of his contention that fresh
selection should not take place after every
3 All] Shiv Manorath Shukla and others V. State of U.P. and others
1351
three years for appointment of Gram
Rojgar Sewak. The relevant portion of the
judgment is as follows:-

"In the instant petitions, the State
Government has frankly admitted that
there is a need of teachers. They have also
admitted that several thousands of posts
of teachers are lying vacant. They have
not denied their responsibilities to
impart education. They have not denied
the right to the petitioners to continue
but they have contended that they have
to go through a fresh selection while
admittedly they have already gone
through a due process of selection and
they are duly selected and qualified
Subject Experts. If the posts are there
and the work is there and obligation of
the State to impart education is there
and even then these petitioners are
deprived of their right of employment
which will be a breach of their
fundamental right to continue in
employment arbitrarily by imposing
unreasonable restriction.

The initial policy of the State
Government in making appointment to
the teachers on the post of Subject Expert
indicates that the Government desire to
give preference to the teachers having
experience. Now by issuing an order on
30.6.2003, the Director Education is
debarring those experienced teachers who
had obtained experience before the
joining on the post of Subject Experts and
those who have further increased their
experience by teaching the students in the
three academic sessions. Therefore, this
restriction that the maximum limit for
giving appointment to a Subject Expert
will be three years, is most arbitrary
and unreasonable and contrary to the
requirement
as
shown
in
the
advertisement."

(emphasis supplied)

15. The aforesaid judgment was
followed by this Court in Manoj Kumar
Rastogi (supra).

16. It is not in dispute that the need
to employ Rojgar Sewaks exists. The
scheme of the Act is to provide at least
100 days of work in a calender year to
such adult members of a household who
volunteer to do unskilled manual work
and Programme Officers are appointed to
assist the Panchayat in the discharge of its
functions. The Act further provides for
making
available
to
the
District
Programme Coordinators and Programme
Officers necessary staff and technical
support for effective implementation of
the Scheme and it is for this purpose that
the State Government issued the order
dated 3rd July, 2006 for appointment of a
Panchayat Mitra in each Gram Panchayat
to provide administrative assistance for
implementation of the Scheme though
subsequently by the Government Order
dated
23rd
November,
2007
the
designation of Panchayat Mitra was
changed to Rojgar Sewak and the
implementation of the Scheme was
shifted to the Gram Vikas Department
from the Panchayat Raj Department. It is,
therefore, seen that Rojgar Sewaks have
to perform the important task of assisting
the District Programme Coordinator and
the Programme Officers for the proper
implementation of the Scheme framed
under the Act. The Government Orders
dated 3rd July, 2006 and 23rd November,
2007 provide for a detailed procedure for
appointment
of
such
Panchayat
Mitra/Rojgar Sewak. An advertisement
1352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
has to be issued and thereafter the
Selection Committee meets and examines
the cases and recommends the names on
the basis of the marks obtained by the
candidates in the High School and
Intermediate
Examinations.
These
appointments are then approved by the
competent authority and the Rojgar
Sewaks are appointed for one year but if
their services are found to be satisfactory,
then their appointment is renewed for one
year at a time subject to a maximum
period of two years. The petitioners were
initially appointed as Panchayat Mitras in
December, 2006 for a period of one year
and as their work was found to be
satisfactory,
their
appointment
was
renewed for one year at a time for two
years. Though the Government Orders
dated 3rd July, 2006 and 23rd November,
2007 did provide that the maximum
period for which the Rojgar Sewak can be
appointed
is
three
years
but
the
Government Order dated 25th August,
2010 has relaxed this condition to a
certain extent and it provides that such
Rojgar Sewaks who have completed three
years of service can again apply in the
fresh selections and preference shall be
given to them.

17. The grievance of the petitioners
is limited to the holding of fresh
selections and what they contend is that if
their work is found to be satisfactory,
their appointment should be renewed
without
holding
fresh
selections.
According to them they have gained
experience and as their services have been
found to be satisfactory, there is no good
reason to replace them with other persons
and, therefore, the requirement of holding
a fresh selection is not only arbitrary but
introduces an element of uncertainty in
their service.

18. All that has been contended by
the learned Additional Advocate General
for the State is that the procedure
contemplated under the Government
Order
dated 23rd
November,
2007
enables the Department to examine
whether better candidates are available to
be selected and there is no harm in
adopting such a procedure. It is also his
contention that the appointment of Rojgar
Sewak is purely contractual in nature and
since the petitioners were aware of the
terms and conditions of appointment
when they sought initial appointment they
cannot turn around and contend that they
should be continued in service even after
the expiry of three years.

19. In Chandra Kishore (supra), the
Court accepted the contention of the
petitioners therein that the restriction of
maximum limit of three years for giving
appointment is arbitrary and unreasonable
since the petitioners had gone through the
selection process and the requirement
existed. Observations to the same effect
were also made by a Division Bench of
this Court in Dr. Dinesh Kumar Rajput
& Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2008
(7) ADJ 188 after following the decision
of the Supreme Court in Ratan Lal &
Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.,
(1985) 4 SCC 43. This apart the State
Government
itself
has,
by
the
Government Order dated 25th August,
2010, relaxed the maximum limit of three
years term of Rojgar Sewaks, though with
a rider that they shall have to compete in
fresh selection with others. The Act
contemplates framing of a Scheme for
implementation of the Act and Section 18
also provides that the State Government
shall make available to the District
Programme
Coordinator
and
the
Programme Officer necessary staff and
3 All] Shiv Manorath Shukla and others V. State of U.P. and others
1353
technical support as may be necessary for
the effective implementation of the
Scheme. It is for this purpose that the
State Government has provided for
appointment of Rojgar Sewaks and
though the Act does not provide for fresh
selections after every three years, the
Scheme framed by the State Government
provides for holding fresh selections after
every three years.

20. The decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of Mohd. Abdul Kadir
& Anr. Vs. Director General of Police,
Assam & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 611
clinches the issue in favour of the
petitioners. The Government of India
formulated the Prevention of Infiltration
of Foreigners Scheme for Assam for
strengthening the Assam Governmental
machinery for detection and deportation
of foreigners in the year 1960. The
Scheme was extended from time to time.
A Selection Board was constituted for
selection of ex-servicemen to the various
posts which were sanctioned under the
additional scheme. The Inspector General
of Police, Border Assam issued a circular
dated 17th March, 1995 laying down the
following
procedure
for
appointment/continuation
of
the
exservicemen as ad-hoc Border staff:-

(i) All appointments shall be for a
contract period of one year.

(ii) Termination notice should be
issued to every ad-hoc employee at least
45 days before the date of expiry of one
year from the date of appointment.

(iii) The ad hoc employee, on
receiving
information
regarding
termination from service, shall, if he
desires to continue, send an application
seeking fresh appointment for a further
term of one year. The application should
reach the office of IGB (B), Assam at
least 30 days before the date of expiry of
one year.

(iv)
The
concerned
DIGP
(Range)/Superintendent of Police shall
send a performance report and medical
certificate in respect of each ad hoc
employee to whom such termination
notice has been issued at least 30 days
before the date of such termination while
forwarding the applications for fresh
appointment.

(v)
The
applications
for
fresh
appointment shall be considered with
reference to the respective performance
report and medical certificate, and those
found fit and suitable will be re-appointed
at least 20 days before the date of expiry
of the contract period of one year.

(vi) Such fresh appointment letters
shall be issued by the Superintendent of
Police (Border) Assam and the ad hoc
employees cleared for fresh appointment
shall sign an agreement and submit his
joining report.

(vii)
If
application
for
fresh
appointment is not received in due time, it
will be taken that the ad-hoc employee
has not sought fresh appointment and he
will
not
be
considered
for
fresh
appointment."

21. Writ petitions were filed in the
Guwahati High Court as the ad-hoc
employees felt aggrieved by the process
of reappointment introduced by the
aforesaid circular dated 17th March, 1995
and it was submitted that such a
procedure introduced an element of
1354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
uncertainty in regard to their service and
gave room for nepotism and corruption.
The writ petition was allowed by a
learned Judge of the High Court but the
Division Bench set aside the order and
dismissed the writ petition. The matter
was taken to the Supreme Court by the
employees. The Supreme Court rejected
the plea of the appellants-employees
regarding regularisation of their services
but quashed the Circular dated 17th
March, 1995 holding that artificial breaks
by annual terminations followed by fresh
appointments is contrary to the Scheme
and the principles of service jurisprudence
and in this context observed:-

"8. We may next consider the
challenge to the procedure of annual
termination
and
reappointment
introduced by the circular dated
17.3.1995. The PIF Scheme and PIF
Additional Scheme were introduced by
Government of India. The scheme does
not
contemplate
or
require
such
periodical
termination
and
reappointment. Only ex-servicemen are
eligible to be selected under the scheme
and that too after undergoing regular
selection process under the Scheme. They
joined the scheme being under the
impression that they will be continued as
long as the PIF Additional Scheme was
continued. The artificial annual breaks
and reappointments were introduced
by the state agency entrusted with the
operation of the Scheme. This Court
has always frowned upon artificial
breaks in service. When the ad-hoc
appointment is under a scheme and is
in accordance with the selection process
prescribed by the scheme, there is no
reason why those appointed under the
scheme should not be continued as long
as
the
scheme
continues.
Ad-hoc
appointments under schemes are normally
co-terminus with the scheme (subject of
course to earlier termination either on
medical or disciplinary grounds, or for
unsatisfactory service or on attainment of
normal age of retirement). Irrespective of
the length of their ad hoc service or the
scheme, they will not be entitled to
regularization nor to the security of tenure
and service benefits available to the
regular employees. In this background,
particularly in view of the continuing
Scheme, the ex-serviceman employed
after undergoing selection process,
need not be subjected to the agony,
anxiety, humiliation and vicissitudes of
annual termination and re-engagement,
merely because their appointment is
termed as ad hoc appointments. We are
therefore of the view that the learned
Single Judge was justified in observing
that the process of termination and reappointment every year should be
avoided and the appellants should be
continued as long as the Scheme
continues, but purely on ad hoc and
temporary basis, co- terminus with the
scheme. The circular dated 17.3.1995
directing artificial breaks by annual
terminations
followed
by
fresh
appointment, being contrary to the PIF
Additional Scheme and contrary to the
principles of service jurisprudence, is
liable to be is quashed.

..................

10. The appeal is allowed in part
accordingly as follows:

(i) The circular dated 17.3.1995 is
quashed. The appellants shall not be
subjected to annual terminations and
re-appointments
(subject
to
observations in para 8 above).
3 All] Shiv Manorath Shukla and others V. State of U.P. and others
1355

(ii) The benefit of this order will be
available to other similarly situated ad hoc
border staff, even if they have not
approached the court for relief. In view of
the above, the interlocutory applications
for impleading are disposed of as having
become infructuous.

(iii) This order will not however
come in the way of ad hoc employees
working as Border staff, being subjected
to any periodical medical examination or
service review to assess their fitness and
suitability for continuation."

(emphasis supplied)

22. The relief prayed for by the
petitioners in this petition is more or less
similar to the relief granted by the
Supreme Court in the aforesaid case since
what the petitioners are claiming in this
petition is that fresh selections should not
take place for appointment after every
three
years
and
their
contract
of
appointment should be renewed annually
subject to satisfactory work.

23. The Supreme Court in Mohd.
Abdul Kadir (supra) found that procedure
for reappointment after every year is
arbitrary and against service jurisprudence
since when appointment is under a
Scheme and is in accordance with the
selection process prescribed by the
Scheme, there is no reason why such
appointments under the Scheme should
not be continued as long as the Scheme
continues subject ofcourse to termination
either on medical or disciplinary grounds
or for unsatisfactory service or on
attainment of normal age of retirement.

24. The Supreme Court has time and
again pointed out that in exercise of the
power of judicial review, the Courts do
not ordinarily interfere with the policy
decisions of the executive unless the
policy can be faulted on the ground of
mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness
or unfairness as arbitrariness, irrationality,
perversity and mala fide render the policy
unconstitutional. Thus, when the policy of
the Government is found to be arbitrary,
the
Courts
would
be
justified
in
interfering with the policy decision. In
this connection reference can be made to
the decisions of the Supreme Court in
M/s. Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. Delhi
Administration & Ors., AIR 2001 SC
1447; Union of India Vs. Dinesh
Engineering Corpn. & Anr. (2001) 8
SCC 491 and Union of India & Anr. Vs.
International Trading Company &
Anr. (2003) 5 SCC 437.

25. In A. Satyanarayana & Anr.
Vs. S. Purushotham & Ors., 2008 AIR
SCW 3282 the scope of judicial review of
a policy decision reflected in a statutory
rule was also examined by the Supreme
Court and it was observed:-

"We, however, are of the opinion
that the validity or otherwise of a quota
rule cannot be determined on surmises
and conjectures. Whereas the power of
the State to fix the quota keeping in view
the fact situation obtaining in a given case
must be conceded, the same, however,
cannot be violative of the constitutional
scheme of equality as contemplated under
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India. There cannot be any doubt
whatsoever that a policy decision and,
in particular, legislative policy should
not ordinarily be interfered with and
the Superior Courts, while exercising
its power of judicial review, shall not
consider as to whether such policy
1356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
decision has been taken mala fide or
not. But where a policy decision as
reflected in a statutory rule pertains to
the field of subordinate legislation,
indisputably,
the
same
would
be
amenable to judicial review, inter alia,
on the ground of being violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
{See Vasu Dev Singh & Ors. v. Union of
India & Ors. [2006 (1) SCALE 108] and
State of Kerala & Ors. v. Unni & Anr.
[(2007) 2 SCC 365]."

(emphasis supplied)

26. The only reason pointed out by
learned Additional Advocate General for
the State is that holding of fresh selections
after three years may result in appointment
of a better person as a Rojgar Sewak. This
does not appeal to reason and a policy for
fresh selection every year has been held to
be
arbitrary
and
against
service
jurisprudence by the Supreme Court in
Mohd. Abdul Kadir (supra) though with
certain exceptions namely when service is
found to be unsatisfactory or on medical or
disciplinary grounds.

27. The decision in Geeta Devi
(supra)
relied
upon
by
the
learned
Additional Advocate General for the State
of U.P. also does not help the respondents
inasmuch as this issue was not involved.
The relevant observations are:-

"In view of this admitted position that
the period of two years of engagement of
respondent no. 1 has expired long back, the
question as to whether the appellant could
have removed him under the impugned
order or not, looses significance inasmuch
as once the tenure of the respondent no. 1
has come to an end, there is no legal right
vested in him to claim continuance. Even
otherwise, the order impugned in the writ
petition passed, by the appellant, was
backed up by a resolution as indicated in the
order itself. The respondent no. 1 was also
handed over his dues in accordance with the
said Government Order. In such a situation,
once the contract of engagement has
expired and admittedly there was no other
extension possible or actually made under
any law for the time being in force, there
was no occasion for the learned Single
Judge to have granted an interim order, the
impact whereof was to continue the
respondent no. 1 as Gram Rojgar Sevak."

28. It is, therefore, not possible, in
view of the aforesaid decisions of the
Supreme Court to uphold the policy of the
Government contained in the Government
Order dated 25th August, 2010 regarding
holding of fresh selections for appointment
of Rojgar Sewak after every three years.
The appointment of the Rojgar Sewaks
should be continued even after they have
worked for three years, though one year at a
time, subject to satisfactory work as was the
procedure adopted prior to the expiry of
three years of service.

29. The condition contained in
paragraph 4 of the Government Order dated
25th August, 2010 to the extent that fresh
selection shall take place after three years is,
therefore, set aside and it is provided that
even after expiry of three years of service,
the appointment of Rojgar Sewak shall be
renewed for a period of one year at a time
subject to satisfactory work.

30. The writ petition is, accordingly,
allowed to the extent indicated above.
---------
3 All] Lalta Prasad and others V Housing Commissioner U.P. and another
1357
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.10.2010

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

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 63621 of 2009

Lalta Prasad and others
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Housing Commissioner U.P. and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pooja Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Court Fee Act-Section 5-More than 35
person-Seeking
direction
for
the
authority concern- to -accept house rent
as per direction of Court-stamp reporter
reported
deficiency
of
court
fee
separately-Held-act of authority offect in
general-common question of fact and
law envolve-for consideration case fallunder category(A) of principle No Ihence even more than single person
jointly challenging such act-Single Court
fee payable sufficient.

Held: Para 22

From a perusal of the averments made in
the Writ Petition, it is evident that the
petitioners are aggrieved by the same
act
of
the
Additional
Labour
Commissioner, namely, refusal to accept
the rent in respect of the quarters
allotted to the petitioners. The act of the
Additional Labour Commissioner affects
the petitioners in general. The challenge
to the said act of the Additional Labour
Commissioner by all the petitioners is on
the basis of the same facts, namely, the
orders passed by this Court in Civil Misc.
Writ Petition 6373 of 1991 filed by the
Workmen living in the labour colony at
Kanpur. The reliefs sought in the Writ
Petition is regarding the said act of the
Additional Labour Commissioner. Hence,
the right to seek relief, if any, arises to
the petitioners from the same act of the
Additional
Labour
Commissioner.
Further, common questions of law and
fact are involved in such a situation.
Hence, such a case falls in category (A)
of Principle No. 1, mentioned above.
Therefore,
in
case
more
than
one
petitioner joins in a single Writ Petition
challenging the said act, only a single set
of Court Fee is required to be paid.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1981 SC 298 (paragraph 63), AIR 1984
Allahabad 46 (F.B.) (paragraph 34 and 36),
(1994) 2 UPLBEC 1228 (D.B.).

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.)

Order on

Objection, filed under section 5 of
the Court Fees Act, 1870 against the
Report/order of the Taxing Officer dated
10.11.2009 as well as the Report of the
Stamp Reporter dated 29.10.2009.

1. It appears that the present writ
petition, whrein 35 persons have joined as
petitioners, was placed before the Stamp
Reporter for getting the same reported. The
Court Fee paid on the Writ Petition is Rs.
100/-while Rs. 5/- has been paid as Court
Fee on the Stay Application. The Stamp
Reporter in his Report dated 29.10.2009
reported that there was deficiency of Rs.
3570/- in Court Fee paid on the Writ
Petition and the Stay Application. The said
Report was evidently given by the Stamp
Reporter on the ground that separate Court
Fee was payable by each of the 35
petitioners in respect of the Writ Petition
and the Stay Application.

2. The learned counsel for the
petitioners objected to the said Report of