Court No. - 40
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 804 of 2018 Appellant :- Arjun Singh Respondent :- The Director Of Higher Education And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Nath Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Ref:- Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.1 of 2018 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The delay has been sufficiently explained.
The delay is condoned. The delay condonation application is allowed.
The appeal shall be treated to be within time. Office shall allot a regular number to the appeal.
Order Date :- 30.10.2018 Atmesh
Court No. - 40
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 804 of 2018 Appellant :- Arjun Singh Respondent :- The Director Of Higher Education And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Nath Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
This intra Court appeal is directed against the order dated 12th April, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition on merits in the absence of the counsel despite holding that the petitioner seems to have lost interest in the matter. The observation made in paragraph 3 of the order dated 12th April, 2018 runs as under:-
"I have gone through the pleadings, grounds as also reliefs sought and find that petitioner is not able to make out a case so as to justify interference of this Court by granting reliefs, as prayed for."
The facts as pleaded in the writ petition and in the appeal are that petitioner was appointed on class 4th position in the computer department of Sahu Ram Swarup Mahila Post Graduate College, Bareilly on 16th September, 1992 on a substantive post and that too against advertisement. So, according to him, selection and appointment were as per the Rules and he was issued an appointment order also pursuant to which he submitted his joining and continued to work. The services of the petitioner were extended from time to time and certificates of the appreciation were issued to him. The petitioner, therefore, claimed for regularization/ absorption in service against the substantive vacancy of class IV and this Court disposed of Writ Petition No. 24083 of 1999 filed by the petitioner directing the authority concerned to decide the matter vide order dated 27th September, 1999. However, vide order dated 28th December, 1999, the petitioner's claim for absorption was rejected but he was permitted to continue to work on daily wage basis as per the requirement. The petitioner by means of the Writ Petition No. 17720 of 2000 out of which the present appeal arises, challenged the order passed by the 2nd respondent and this Court while entertaining the writ petition granted interim protection to the petitioner in terms as under:-
"In the meantime if the work and post is available the petitioner shall be allowed to continue and shall be considered for regularization."
It appears that while the pleadings were exchanged the claim of the petitioner and rejected the same vide order dated 13th August, 2013. The petitioner-appellant also challenged the said order by amending the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously argued that the petitioner having worked for more than two decades was wrongly denied regularization/ absorption whereas similarly placed employee Smt. Shakuntala Devi was continued and was paid salary and accordingly he submits that while dismissing the writ petition the learned Single Judge did not advert to the facts pleaded in the writ petition and grounds taken therein. He argues that the order passed by the learned Single Judge lacks reason and there is erroneous assumption that the petitioner had not been able to make out a case on merits. He further argues that in the absence of any pleadings being recorded, the writ court was not justified in dismissing the writ petition on merits.
We find force in the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. While passing an order on merits, the court should discuss the pleadings as raised in the petition justifying the action which is impugned in the writ petition and is assailed on various grounds. Issues require consideration on the grounds raised by the court for arriving at a finding that the petition lacks merit.
In view of the above, the order dated 12.04.2018 impugned in the appeal cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.
The writ petition is restored to its original number and shall be placed before the appropriate Bench for adjudication on merits as fresh.
The interim order, if any, that was vacated under the impugned order, also stands revived.
Order Date :- 30.10.2018 Atmesh