# Sujeet Kumar Singh and others v. Union of India and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 2 ILRA 337
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-01-10
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10866 of 2002
- **Bench:** M. Katju, Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sujeet-kumar-singh-and-others-v-union-of-india-and-others-40096
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India-
Article
226-
temporary employees have no right to
the post and they can have no grievance
as
their
appointments
are
only
temporary- At the most the petitioners
could have been given preference, had
they also applied for screening or had
participated in the selection process
which they have not done.

Held -para 11

It is an admitted fact that the petitioners
are only substitutes and they were
appointed on temporary basis till the
regular appointments were made by
R.R.B., Allahabad. Since they did not
participate in the selection process they
cannot
challenge
the
process
of
selection.
Case law referred:
(1998) 6 SCC-619, (1980) 2 SCC-593
(1997) 2 SCC-1, AIR 2000 SC-1401
AIR 2001 SC-102

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Sujeet Kumar Singh and others V. Union of India and others
337
the
employer
and
the
workman
concerned contains a stipulation in that
behalf; or
(c) Termination of the service of a
workman on the ground of continued illhealth."

6. In view of the law laid down by
the apex Court, referred to above, the
finding s recorded by the Tribunal that the
termination of the workman concerned, in
the present case, has been done without
compliance of the provisions of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, which is pari materia to Section 25F of the aforesaid Act, do not warrant any
interference by means of this writ
petition.

7. In view of what has been stated
above, this writ petition is devoid of any
merits and is accordingly dismissed. The
interim order, if any, stand vacated.
However, the parties shall bear their own
cost.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.1.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10866 of 2002

Sujeet Kumar Singh and others

 ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Anupam Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Tarun Varma
Sri Amit Sthalekar
Sri Govind Saran

Constitution
of
India-
Article
226-
temporary employees have no right to
the post and they can have no grievance
as
their
appointments
are
only
temporary- At the most the petitioners
could have been given preference, had
they also applied for screening or had
participated in the selection process
which they have not done.

Held -para 11

It is an admitted fact that the petitioners
are only substitutes and they were
appointed on temporary basis till the
regular appointments were made by
R.R.B., Allahabad. Since they did not
participate in the selection process they
cannot
challenge
the
process
of
selection.
Case law referred:
(1998) 6 SCC-619, (1980) 2 SCC-593
(1997) 2 SCC-1, AIR 2000 SC-1401
AIR 2001 SC-102

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. The petitioners have filed this writ
petition challenging the impugned orders
of their termination of service dated
8.3.2002 Annexure-2a, 2-b and 2-c to the
writ petition passed subsequent to the
judgment of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Allahabad dated 05.03.2002,
Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The
petitioners have also sought a direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to consider the case of their
absorption/regularization against existing
vacancies
in
different
regions
in
accordance with the Rules and master
Circular issued by the Railway Board
dated 29.01.1991 and thereafter the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
338
remaining seats may be filled up out of
the selected candidates.

3. The brief facts of the case are
that three vacancies of Pharmacist in
Grade-III in the scale of Rs.4500-7000
and one post of Radiographer in the scale
of Rs. 4500-7000 in the non-gazetted
cadre of para-medical category, in Diesel
Locomotive
Works,
hospital
were
required
to
be
filled
in
by
the
administration in the beginning of the
year 1998. According to the Rules laid
down in Rule 109 read with Rule 162 and
164 of Indian Railways Establishment
Manual. Volume-I, 1989 edition, the
above vacancies were to be filled by
direct
recruitment
through
Railway
Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to
as RRB). Accordingly, indents in two
phases for recruitment of one post of
pharmacist and one post of radiographer
were sent to RRB. Allahabad vide letter
no. 27/5/56 E/Med/Part-IX dated 15.01.98
and another indent for 2 posts of
pharmacist Grade-III Rs. 4500-7000 was
placed on RRB vide letter no. 27/5/56
E/Med/Part-IX dated 26.02.98. Thus the
total indents were for 3 posts of
Pharmacist and 1 post of radiographer.
Copies of the aforesaid letters dated
15.01.98 and 26.02.98 are Annexure-CA1 and CA-2 respectively. In view of the
time factor and delay in getting the
selected candidate from RRB/ Allahabad,
and difficulty in managing the increased
work load in D.L.W. hospital, it was
decided by the competent authority to
engage
substitute
employees
as
a
temporary measures against the above
posts till regularly selected candidates
become available.

4. Petitioner nos. 1 Sujeet Kumar
Singh and petitioner no. 2 Anand Kumar
Mishra were informed about the terms
and conditions of service by means of
letter dated 24.12.98 specifically stating
that they could be offered temporary
employment on daily wages for a period
of three months or till the directly selected
candidates for the post are available after
selection by the RRB, Allahabad only if
these conditions were acceptable to them.
Petitioner no. 3 was also offered
employment as substitute Radiographer
for a period of three months or till
regularly selected candidates on the same
terms. Relevant paras 1,3 and 10 of letter
dated
24.12.98
appointing
them
as
substitutes are being quoted below:

ßeSa
vkidks
os0ek0
:04500&7000
1⁄4vkj0,l0vkj0ih01⁄2 esa :0 4500@& izfrekg osru
,oa orZeku fu;eksa ds vuqlkj ns; HkRrksa ds lkFk
dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus dh frfFk ls rhu eghus ds fy,
,oth QkekZflLV&AAA in ds fy, rS;kj gwWa A vki
LokLF; ijh{kk ds fy;s :024@& Hkh lkFk yk;sa Aß

vkidh ;g lsok fdlh Hkh i{k }kjk ,d ekg dh
lwpuk nsdj lekIr dh tk ldrh gS A ;g Hkyh Hkk¡fr
le> ysa fd ;fn vkidks lsok;sa jsy HkrhZ ifj"kn]
bykgkckn }kjk p;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa ds miyC/k gksus ;k
ftl vof/k ds fy, vkidks j[kk x;k gS] ds lekIr gksus
;k vkidks 'kkjhfjd n`f"V ls v;ksX; ik;s tkus ij
lekIr dh tkrh gS] rks vkidks fdlh dh lwpuk nsuk
vko';d ugha gksxk Aß

vkidks Li"V :i ls ;g le> ysuk pkfg, fd
vkidks iw.kZr;k vLFkk;h rkSj ij j[kk tk jgk gS vkSj
jsy HkrhZ ifj"kn] bykgkckn }kjk p;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa ds
miyC/k gksrs gh mijksDr iSjk&2 ds vuqlkj vkidh lsok
Lor% lekIr gks tk;sxh Aß

5. On acceptance of the above
conditions petitioner nos. 1,2 and 3 were
given appointments vide appointment
letters dated 12.01.99. The appointment
letters of all the three petitioners are in the
same language and are annexed as
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Sujeet Kumar Singh and others V. Union of India and others
339
Annexures-3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) to the writ
petition. One such letter appointing the
petitioners in terms of letter dated
24.12.98 as substitutes is quoted below:
ßHkkjrh; jsy
Mh0js0dk0@ okjk.klh
dk;kZy; egk izcU/kd 1⁄4dkfeZd1⁄2
fnuk¡d 12-1-99
la0&Mh0,l0Mcyw@ih@27@5@56 bZ1⁄4esM1⁄2@Hkkx&1

fnuk¡d 12&1&99
Jh vkuUn dqekj feJ

Øe la0 11856
vkRet Jh c`tukFk feJ

fo"k;% osrueku :04500&7000 1⁄4iq0os01⁄2 esa ,oth
QkekZflLV ds :i esa fu;qDr A

&&&&&

bl dk;kZy; ds fnuk¡d 24&12&98 ds
lela[;d i= dks vki }kjk Lohd`fr feyus ij vkidks
,oth QkekZflLV ds :i esa fu;qDr dh tkrh gS vkSj
xzs0 :04500&7000 esa :045@& izfrekg osru nj
fu;ekuqlkj Lohdk;Z lkekU; HkRrs ij eq[; fpfdRlk
v/kh{kd Mhty jsy batu dkj[kkuk] okjk.klh ds v/khu
rSukr fd;k tkrk gS A

ftl fnu ls vki eq[; fpfdRlk v/kh{kd Mhty
jsy batu dkj[kkuk okjk.klh ds ;gk¡ M~;wVh ij Tokbu
djsaxs mlh fnu ls vki viuk osru ik;saxs A
g0@vLi"V
12&1&99
ofj"B dkfeZd vf/kdkjh
Mh0js0dk0] okjk.klh A

izfrfyfi eq[; fpfdRlk v/kh{kd Mhty jsy batu
dkj[kkuk] okjk.klh dh lsok esa lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d
dk;Zokgh ds fy, izsf"kr A os lwpuk bl dk;kZy; dks
mi;qDr O;fDr ds M~;wVh ij Tokbu djus dh rkjh[k
lwfpr djsaxsA d`i;k uhps fn;s gq, QkeZ dks i<+ ysa vkSj
vius ;gk¡ mi;qZDr mEehnokj ls M~;wVh ij Tokbu djus
dh rkjh[k dh lwpuk nsus ds fy, bldk mi;ksx djsa A

d'rs egk izcU/kd 1⁄4dkfeZd1⁄2Þ

6.
Since
a
panel
of
two
pharmacists and one Radiographer of
directly selected candidates was yet to be
received, the services of the petitioners
were continued as substitutes in terms of
the conditions of appointment laid down
in
their
letters
of
appointment
as
substitutes read with the provisions
contained in Note-2 under para 3 of the
Railway Board's Master Circular dated
29.1.91.

7. According to the provisions
contained para 4.4 of the above Railway
Board's Master Circular dated 29.1.1991,
a substitute on conferment of temporary
status does not become entitled for
automatic
absorption/appointment
in
Railway Service unless they are appointed
through selection or are absorbed after
screening by the Screening Committee.

8. It is contended by the counsel for
the petitioners that they were appointed as
substitutes on the posts of Pharmacist
Grade-III
and
Radiographer
vide
appointment order dated 12.1.1999. All
the
three
petitioners
were
awarded
temporary status w.e.f. 13.5.1999 vide
order dated 28.10.1999. The claim of the
petitioners is that in terms of para 5 of the
Master Circular of the Railway Board No.
20/91 dated 29.01.1991, they should have
been screened for regular appointment
without advertising these posts and as
such the procedure adopted by the
Railway in advertising these posts is
violative of the instructions laid down in
the above circular which is liable to be
struck down.

9. Action for filling up the posts of
pharmacist and radiographer was taken in
accordance with the rules in January and
February, 1998 in two phases, whereas,
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
340
the applicants were engaged as substitutes
in January, 1999 i.e. after one year with a
clear stipulation that as and when
regularly selected candidates from RRB
become available, their services will be
terminated. Thus their claim is barred by
the instant rules and law of estoppel as
has been upheld by this Court vide order
dated 12.07.85 in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 3958 of 1985, U.N. Singh
Vs. Union of India & others. A true copy
of the order of this Court dated 12.07.98
has been annexed along with counter
affidavit as Annexure-CA-4 to the counter
affidavit. The cases of substitutes, who
are engaged in Group-D category and
have rendered a long period of service as
substitutes, are considered for absorption
by a Screening committee against regular
vacancies of Group-D when such regular
vacancies become available. But in cases
of substitutes engaged in Group C
category, who have worked for a longer
period (generally more than 3-4 years),
information
in
respect
of
them
is
furnished to the Railway board for taking
decision regarding them.

10. The counsel for the respondents
submits that the indents for recruitment of
pharmacists
and
Radiographer
were
placed on RRB, Allahabad one year
before the engagement of the petitioners
as substitutes. The number of posts
indented
were
published
by
RRB
Allahabad in Employment Notice no. 1/99
dated 04.09.99 in Employment News. The
applicants could have applied and faced
selection
for
regularization,
as
opportunity was available to them at the
relevant time but it appears that they did
not avail such opportunity. It is further
submitted that as regards their claim for
absorption by the Screening Committee
against regular vacancy of group C and D,
the petitioners did not apply for screening
when these vacancies became available
and that in any case a substitute has no
right
to
regularization
automatically.
Unless the rules provide for such
automatic regularization or absorption,
which is not there in the instant case.

11. It is an admitted fact that the
petitioners are only substitutes and they
were appointed on temporary basis till the
regular appointments were made by
R.R.B., Allahabad. Since they did not
participate in the selection process they
cannot challenge the process of selection.
The petitioners have been appointed on
12.01.99 pursuant to letter dated 24.12.98
Annexure-CA-3 in which it has been
clearly laid down that the appointment is
only till the duly selected candidates are
available to the Railway Recruitment
Board. Para 5 of the Master Circular
provides that substitutes and temporary
employees may be screened by the
Screening Committee rather than the
Selection
Board.
Thus
facing
the
Screening Committee is an alternate to
Selection Board and a substitute has to
apply and face either one of them. This
does not bar the Railway Authorities to go
through with a regular selection process
already
indented
for.
Since
the
advertisement
by
the
Railway
Recruitment Board was initiated long
after temporary appointments of the
petitioners as substitutes, they could have
applied for appointment on the said post
and participated in the selection process
or for screening process.

12. The Tribunal after hearing the
parties and going through the record and
after examining para 5 of the Master
Circular dated 29.01.91 held that in view
of the law laid down by the Apex Court in
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Sujeet Kumar Singh and others V. Union of India and others
341
Commissioner, Assam State Housing Vs.
Purna Chandra Bora and another (1998) 6
 SCC-619
the
appointment
of
the
petitioners was made on temporary basis
and a such they had no right to the past
and as such the O.A. was without merit
and was dismissed.

13. The law is well settled in Gujarat
Steel Tubes Limited and others Vs.
Gujarat Steel Tubes Majdoor Sabha and
others, (1980) 2 SCC-593, Ashwani
Kumar and others Vs. State of Bihar
(1997) 2 SCC-1, Narsingh Pal Vs. Union
of India, AIR 2000 SC-1401 and AIR
2001 SC-102 Nazira Bugum Vs. State of
Assam that temporary employees have no
right to the post and they can have no
grievance as their appointments are only
temporary. We have gone through the
judgment of the Central Administrative
Tribunal and do not find any illegality in
the impugned judgment of the Tribunal.
At the most the petitioners could have
been given preference, had they also
applied for screening or had participated
in the selection process, which they have
not done.

14. In view of the facts stated above
we find no merit in this writ petition and
it is accordingly, dismissed.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.01.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

Wealth Tax Reference No. 128 of 1982

Dr. Gaur Hari Singhania (Individual),
Kanpur

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Vikram Gulati

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal
Sri A.N. Mahajan

Wealth Tax Act- Section 17 (1) (G)- if the
assessing officer had reason to believe
that net wealth of a person has escaped
assessment due to non disclosure fully
and truly of all material facts necessary
for the assessment of his net wealth, he
could issue the notice for reassessment-
In the present case- all the conditions for
reassessing
of
the
assessee
as
prescribed under section 17 (1) (a) of
the Wealth Tax Act, existed. Hence in our
opinion the reassessment notice was
fully justified.

Held -Para 9

If the assessing officer had reason to
believe that net wealth of a person has
escaped
assessment
due
to
non
disclosure fully and truly of all material
facts necessary for the assessment of his
net wealth, he could issue the notice for
reassessment. In the present case all the
conditions
for
reassessing
of
the
assessee as prescribed under section 17
(1) (a) of the Wealth Tax Act existed.
Hence in our opinion the reassessment
notice was fully justified.
Case law referred:
Vol.221 I.T.R. page 538

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. The following question has been
referred to this court at the instance of the
assessee under section 27 (1):-

"Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the appellate
tribunal was justified in holding that the