# Yogesh Verma v. District Judge, Aligarh

- **Citation:** (2006) 1 ILRA 562
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-01-10
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25396 of 2002
- **Bench:** D.P. Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/yogesh-verma-v-district-judge-aligarh-40796
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India Art.-226-Principle
of Natural Justice-Termination Orderpassed on the ground-appointment of
illegal
without
advertisement-without
calling
the
name
from
employment
exchange-held-appointment
being
irregular
temporary
appointmentopportunity of hearing not required.

Held: Para 4

It is also well settled that a temporary
employee does not have any right to the
post
and
that
too
one
whose
appointment itself is hit by the principles
1 All] Yogesh Verma V. District Judge, Aligarh
563
enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. Therefore, the contention
of the learned counsel for the petitioner
cannot be accepted.
Case law discussed:
2004 (1) A.W.C.-81
2004 (4) ESC-2190

## Text

562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
(1) The candidate seeking appointment
under these rules must not be less
than 18 years at the time of
appointment.

(2) The procedural requirements for
selection; such as written test or
interview by a selection committee
or any other authority, shall be
dispensed with, but it shall be open
to the appointing authority to
interview the candidate in order to
satisfy itself that the candidate will
be able to maintain the minimum
standards of work and efficiency
expected on the post.

7. A joint reading of the three rules
leads to the only conclusion, relevant for
the present facts, that the incumbent ought
to be more than 18 years old and the
minimum age for recruitment in the
normal recruitment rules would stand
relaxed and the incumbent would be
entitled for compassionate appointment. It
need not be emphasized that the rules are
an exception to the normal recruitment
rules. Applying the effect of the aforesaid
rules to the case at hand, it would be
apparent that the impugned order cannot
be sustained. The only ground for
refusing appointment as Sub Inspector is
that the petitioner was less than 21 years
of age but it is apparent that he was in fact
more than 18 years of age when he
applied for compassionate appointment.
In any event, on the date when the claim
of the petitioner was rejected, he had
already attained the age of 21 years.

8. Thus, examining the impugned
order from either of the two angles, it
cannot be sustained.

9.

For
the
reasons
given
hereinabove, this petition succeeds and is
allowed and the impugned order dated
4.12.2002
is
hereby
quashed.
The
respondents are directed to reconsider the
claim of the petitioner in the light of the
observations made hereinabove within a
period of two months and grant him
appointment as Sub Inspector. No order
as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.01.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE D.P. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25396 of 2002

Yogesh Verma

...Petitioner
Versus
District Judge, Aligarh. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vikas Budhwar
Sri Dileep Kumar
Sri Rajeev Gupta

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Amit Sthalekar
Sri K.R. Sirohi
S.C.

Constitution of India Art.-226-Principle
of Natural Justice-Termination Orderpassed on the ground-appointment of
illegal
without
advertisement-without
calling
the
name
from
employment
exchange-held-appointment
being
irregular
temporary
appointmentopportunity of hearing not required.

Held: Para 4

It is also well settled that a temporary
employee does not have any right to the
post
and
that
too
one
whose
appointment itself is hit by the principles
1 All] Yogesh Verma V. District Judge, Aligarh
563
enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. Therefore, the contention
of the learned counsel for the petitioner
cannot be accepted.
Case law discussed:
2004 (1) A.W.C.-81
2004 (4) ESC-2190

(Delivered by Hon'ble D.P. Singh, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

This petition is directed against a
termination order dated 31.5.2002 by
which the services of the petitioner from
the post of watchman in the subordinate
courts at Aligarh have been ceased.

2. On an application moved by the
petitioner, he was appointed as watchman
by an order dated 18.1.2002 in pursuance
whereof
he
joined
at
Aligarh
on
25.1.2002. The impugned order has been
passed on the ground that his services
were temporary and for not performing
his duties diligently.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has urged that the order is stigmatic and,
therefore, opportunity was necessary.

4. A perusal of the appointment
letter shows that the petitioner was given
appointment on purely temporary basis
which was terminable without any notice.
It is not denied that the said vacancy was
neither
widely
advertised
in
daily
newspapers nor names were sought from
the Employment Exchange and merely on
an application moved by the petitioner, he
was granted appointment. A learned
Single Judge of this court in the case of
Sachin Kumar and others v. State of
U.P. and others (Writ Petition No.
24665 of 2003 decided on 22.8.2005) has
held "........ Where the District Judge
does not advertise the vacancy and follow
any procedure, muchless a fair and
reasonable
procedure
for
selection,
having due regard to the eligibility and to
follow the rules of reservation, the
appointments cannot be sustained." The
learned Single Judge has considered that
even though the appointment was at the
sole discretion of the District Judge but
the recruitment procedure should be fair,
transparent and reasonable and should
conform to the tests of equality, nonarbitrariness as guaranteed to all the
citizens under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. In yet another
cause, in the case of Shiv Murti
Chandra Mishra & 5 others v. State of
U.P. and 17 others (writ Petition No.
57323 of 2005 decided on 25.8.2005)
another learned Single Judge has held that
even on the post of watchman the
recruitment has to be made through a
procedure which is in conformity with
Article 14 of the Constitution. In the
present case, it is not denied by the
counsel
for
the
petitioner
that
no
procedure at all was followed for filling
up the vacancy, therefore, it is apparent
that the appointment itself was in
violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. A Division Bench of our
Court in the case of Executive Officer,
Nagar Palika, Firozabad and others v.
Rajendra Singh Yadav [2004 (4) E.S.C.
2190 and in the case of Chief Engineer
and others v. Pancham Ram and others
[2004 (1) A.W.C. 81] has held that where
the appointment is totally irregular no
opportunity is required while dispensing
with his service. No doubt, it is mentioned
in the impugned order that the working of
the petitioner was not upto the mark, but
that is not the foundation of the order. The
foundation of the order is that the
564 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
appointment was temporary which was
terminable without notice and thus in
accordance
with
the
condition
of
appointment letter, the order has been
passed and in this particular case the
petitioner was not entitled to any
opportunity as the order cannot be termed
as stigmatic. It is also well settled that a
temporary employee does not have any
right to the post and that too one whose
appointment itself is hit by the principles
enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. Therefore, the contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioner
cannot be accepted.

No other point has been urged.

5. For the reasons given above, I do
not find that this is a fit case for
interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Rejected.
Petition dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.01.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.M. SAHAI, J.
THE HON'BLE SABHAJEET YADAV, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57044 of 2005

Bihangesh Nandan Sharan
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
V.M. Zaidi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Q.H. Siddiqui
S.C.

U.P. Jal Nigam Engineers (Public Health
Branch)
Service
Regulation
1978
Regulation
31-readwith
Fundamental
Rules-Rule 56 (a)-age of Superannation
of Assistant Engineers and the executive
Engineer-decision
of
the
Jal
Nigam
retiring the petitioner ate the age of 58
years-held-not
sustainable-They
shall
retire
at
the
age
of
60
years.
Consequential directions issued by the
court.

Held: Para 12 and 14

Amendment made in Rule 56 (a) of
Fundamental
Rules
referred
herein
before
shall
equally
apply
to
the
employees
of
Nigam
covered
by
aforesaid
Regulations
by
virtue
of
Regulation 31, and the petitioners would
be entitled to be superannuated on
attaining their age of 60 years.

In the result, the petitioners are entitled
to be continued in service on their
respective posts till attaining 60 years
age of their superannuation. In case the
petitioners were permitted to continue in
service after attaining their age of 58
years at the strength of any interim
order passed by this Court and they have
also
been
paid
their
salary,
the
respondents are directed to continue
them in service till attaining their age of
60 years and pay their salary admissible
to their respective posts by treating their
age of retirement 60 years. If any of the
petitioner has not been permitted to
continue in service in absence of any
interim order and has not been paid his
salary without his fault, the Nigam is
directed to reinstate him on his post for
remaining period till attaining his age of
60 years and pay his salary alongwith
arrears of remaining period within a
period of three months from the date of
production of certified copy of the order
passed by this Court before the Nigam.
The Nigam is further directed to finalize
post retiral benefits of the petitioners by
treating their age of retirement 60 years.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ
petition succeeds and allowed.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1982 SC 917