Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 747 of 1989 Petitioner :- Jai Prakash Yadav Respondent :- D.I.O.S.
Counsel for Petitioner :- B.D.Mandhyan,K.C.Srivastava,Kalp Nath,S.R. Singh,Subhash Chandra Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:
(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1 to give any appointment to the petitioner befitting his educational qualification against a clear vacancy in accordance with the relevant rules providing for benefit in favour of the defendants of an employee dying in harness.
(ii) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case; and
(iii) award the costs of the petition to the petitioner throughout.
(iv) to issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.5.1988 terminating the services of the petitioner.
(v) to issue suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service on the post on which he was working and pay his salary regular with past arrears as and when it falls due.
By the impugned order dated 28.5.1988, passed by the respondent no.2, the engagement of the petitioner as librarian was cancelled in view of the terms of engagement mentioned in the letter dated 30.6.1986 and the order of this court dated 28.4.1988 in writ petition no.19029 of 1986.
Briefly stated facts of the present case are that according to the petitioner he was engaged by the respondent no.2, vide letter dated 30.6.1986, which is reproduced below:
^^izs"kd] lsok esa] ea=h] clUr fo|ky; b.VjehfM,V dkyst] ehjtkiqjA Jh t; izdk'k ;kno] iq= Lo0 lqnkek ;kno] eq0 f'kokyk egUFk] ehjtkiqjA i=kad @ fu;qfDr@ 31@86&87 fnukad%& 30-6-1986 fo"k;%& fu;qfDr i=A egksn;] vkids izkFkZuk&i= ds Øe esa vkidh fu;qfDr dk vuqeksnu ftyk fo|k;y fujh{kd ehjtkiqj ds i=kad f'kfoj@2828&1@86&87 fnukad 30-6-1986 ds }kjk Jh 'kksHkukFk ykbczsfj;u de DydZ ds in ij muds fuyEcu ,oa fopkjk/khu izdj.k ds QyLo:i fjDr in ij muds fu.kZ; vFkok in ij okil vkus rd ds fy;s Lohd`fr iznku dj nh gSA vr% vkidks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd vki 'kh?kz fo|ky; eas mifLFkr gksdj dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djsaA Hkonh;] g0@& vLi"V ¼Bkdqj izlkn vxzoky½ clUr fo|ky; b.VjehfM,V dkyst] ehjtkiqjA i`0la0@i=kad fu;qfDr@&1@86&87 mlh frfFk dks izfrfyfi ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd ehjtkiqj dks muds i=kad f'kfoj@2828&1@86&87 fnukad 30-6-1986 ds lanHkZ esa lwpukFkZ izsf"krA Hkonh;] g0@& ¼Bkdqj izlkn vxzoky½ clUr fo|ky; b.VjehfM,V dkyst] ehjtkiqjA^^ By the impugned order the petitioner was disengaged in view of the order passed by this court in writ petition no.19029 of 1996, dated 28.4.1988, whereby this court directed to handover the charge to the aforesaid librarian Sri Shobh Nath. The engagement. of the petitioner was made in the event that the aforesaid Sri Shobh Nath was suspended. The proceedings against the aforesaid Sri Shobh Nath was quashed and, a direction was issued to the authorities to give joining to him. Therefore, there is nothing illegal in the impugned order for disengagement of the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this writ petition.
Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 30.4.2018/vkg