Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12731 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ram Avatar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This petition is directed against an order dated 07th June 2017, passed by the Senior Staff Officer, Homeguard Head Office, Lucknow, whereby petitioner's claim for reinstatement as Homeguard has been declined on the ground that on the date of consideration, the petitioner does not possess requisite eligibility for appointment to the post.
Records reveal that petitioner had undergone training for being engaged as Homeguard some time in the year 2008. Petitioner was thereafter engaged as Homeguard and on account of his unauthorized absence he was terminated in the year 2011. The termination order is not under challenge. After expiry of nearly five years, a representation against the termination was made by the petitioner with a prayer to reinstatement him. This representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the order impugned.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the qualification of the petitioner is not required to be examined at the stage of consideration of his representation for reinstatement, inasmuch as the relevant date to assess eligibility would be the date of first appointment and not the date of reinstatement.
Sri Sharad Upadhyay, learned State Counsel opposes the petition by contending that termination order itself is not under challenge and in terms of policy of the State, the qualification has to be examined on the date of consideration of plea for reinstatement.
It transpires that petitioner was terminated in the year 2011 on account of unauthorized absence. Neither the order of termination is assailed nor is annexed along with the writ petition. It appears that some representation was made against the order of termination in the year 2016, upon which, the order impugned has been passed. This order refers to a government order dated 6th December 2010, according to which, the minimum eligibility for engagement as Homeguard is High School and has to be adhered to while considering the request for reinstatement.
It is not in issue that petitioner does not posses the requisite qualification of High School. The termination order once is not under challenge, the representation made for reinstatement has to be treated as one for fresh engagement. The eligibility for the post would have to be considered, in such circumstances, on the date of consideration of representation. As it is found that petitioner did not possess eligibility on the relevant date, no exception can be taken to the action of the respondents in denying consideration to his claim.
Writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 M. ARIF