Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 26630 of 2017 Petitioner :- Rajwant Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manisha Chaturvedi,Smt. Chandra Kala Chaturv Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner assails an order of 11 May 2012 blacklisting him pursuant to an order stated to have been passed by the respondents. The petitioner was working as a Collection Peon. His name was shown at serial no.61 of the final seniority list which was published by the respondents in 2016. However, in that list a remark has been placed against the name of the petitioner that he had been blacklisted. The petitioner contends that prior to the publication of that list, he was unaware of any order of blacklisting having been passed by the respondents. However, the records reflect that on a complaint a report was drawn on 23 March 2012 on the basis of which the SDO had made an endorsement on 11 May 2012 for blacklisting the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is not just against that order of blacklisting which is stated to have been made without following the principles of natural justice, but also that in view of the above, while his juniors whose names appeared at serial no.65, 66, 67, 68 and 71 of the seniority list have been accorded promotion, his claim has been ignored solely on account of the order of blacklisting.
Before the Court, it is not disputed that an order of blacklisting has grave civil consequences and could not have been possibly made without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and granting him opportunity to represent against the proposed action. Although a counter affidavit has been filed, the aforesaid assertions of the principles of natural justice having not been followed are neither disputed nor denied. The petitioner also refers to the fact that although the order of blacklisting is stated to have been passed in 2012, it was never communicated and that the respondent themselves continued to take work from the petitioner even thereafter including in the year 2013.
The Court finds itself unable to sustain the action of the respondents who proceeded to blacklist the petitioner and then chose not to apprise him of that action for years together. That act of blacklisting has come to the fore only upon publication of the seniority list on 30 December 2016. It is also not disputed before the Court that such an action must mandatorily be preceded by a notice being issued and the person who is sought to be blacklisted being given an opportunity to show cause.
In view of the aforesaid fact, the present petition is allowed. The order of 11 May 2012 is quashed and set aside. In case cause exists for maintaining the blacklisting of the petitioner, the respondents shall proceed afresh and in light of the observations made hereinabove. In case the proceedings for blacklisting are dropped, the respondents shall consider the name of the petitioner for regularization in accordance with the relevant rules and bearing in mind the dates from which the juniors to the petitioner are stated to have been absorbed. The claim of the petitioner shall be examined afresh and in light of the observations made hereinabove and a final decision communicated with expedition and in any case within a period of three moths from today.
Order Date :- 12.8.2021 Vivek Kr.