Heard Sri M.S. Rathore learned counsel for the petitioner,learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties no. 1 and 3 , Sri A.M. Tripathi for opposite party no.2 and Sri Vishal Verma, for opposite party no.4.
By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 24.2.2010 and 1.2.2010 passed by opposite parties no. 4 and 2 respectively as contained in annexure 1 and 1A to the writ petition.
As per the admitted fact of the present case, the petitioners were appointed on the post in question in respect to the controversy which is involved in the present case in pursuance of the guidelines issued by the Government Order dated 1.9.2001. Subsequently, by the Government Order 29.6.2002, the earlier order dated 1.2.2010 was modified.
Accordingly , the petitioners were again given appointment in pursuance of the Government Order dated 29.6.2002 on the post in question ( B.R.C./ A.B.R.C. etc.) Moreover, the impugned orders dated 24.2.2010 and 1.2.2010 have been issued which are under challenged in the present writ petition in pursuance to the Government Order dated 29.6.2002.
Further , Government Order dated 29.6.2002 was challenged in Writ Petition No. 1084 (S/S) of 2010, Sri Kirshnapal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, the same was dismissed by order dated 25.2.2010 with the following orders:-
"Relief sought in the present writ petition is that regarding quashing of the Government Order dated 29.6.2002.
Petitioners were appointed in 2002 as Coordinator in view of Government Order dated 29.6.2002. Now by letter dated 19.11.2009, competent authority has issued a direction that in view of Government Order mentioned above, fresh selection may be held on the post of Coordinator after following proper procedure as provided under Government Order. Petitioners are aggrieved by the said order that they may be permitted to continue.
Admittedly, appointment/engagement of petitioners are for a period of two years in pursuance of Government Order. It has further been provided in the said Government Order that once a person has been engaged /appointed on the post of Coordinator, in the next selection he will not be considered as period of engagement is only for a period of two years. Now petitioners cannot raise any grievance to this effect.
The writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed, however, without imposing any cost."
Aggrieved by the order dated 25.2.2010 , Sri Krishna Pal Singh filed Special Appeal no. 164 of 2010 ( Krishna Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) , the same was dismissed by order dated 23.3.2010 which is reproduced as under:-
"Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants and learned Standing counsel.
The appellants/petitioners were appointed under the Government Order dated 29.6.2002, which required continuation for a period of two years and now they could not turn around and say that they may be allowed on the basis of the same sort of arrangement by the District Authority upto 2010. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/petitioners has contended that several orders have been passed by the learned Single Judge on numerous occasions and only interim protection was granted in favour of the appellants/petitioners.
We do not find any logic in the submission of the appellants/petitioners nor any question of parity requires order for determination by the Division Bench only on the basis of any interim protection granted in favour of the appellants/petitioners in their individual case.
The order passed by the learned Single Judge on 25.2.2010 is perfect in nature and not requires any interference by the Division Bench of this Court in the form of special appeal.
Accordingly, special appeal filed by the appellant stands dismissed."
In view of above said fact the controversy which is involved in the present writ petition arising out of the Government Order dated 29.6.2002 has already been settled and concluded by the Division Bench decision dated 23.3.2010 passed in Special Appeal no. 164 of 2010.
For the forgoing reasons, the present writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 2.4.2010 dk/