Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 43817 of 2015 Petitioner :- Ranveer Singh Respondent :- Inspector General Of Registration U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- N.C. Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This writ petition is directed against an order dated 19.6.2015 contained in Annexure -18 to the writ petition, whereby petitioner's claim for appointment on the Class-IV post has been rejected.
It appears that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.21663 of 2003 which was disposed of vide following orders passed on 17.11.2014:-
"The petitioner claims that he was appointed as Class IV employee in the office of the District Registrar, Mainpuri. He claims that on the recommendation of the selection committee petitioner was appointed. He joined his services on 21.10.1991. Later on appointment was cancelled by impugned order on the ground that an order was issued by the Inspector General Registrar on 13.2.2003 that no post of Class IV employee should be filled without the permission of the Head Office.
At the time of moving of this writ petition an interim order was passed, which was extended on 15th September, 2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interim order has not been vacated and inspite of the said fact the respondents have restrained the petitioner from working. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, petitioner preferred a representation before the authority concerned. On his representation a detailed inquiry has been conducted and the Assistant Inspector General Registrar, Mainpuri has conducted the inquiry which has been brought on the record as Annexure-SA-3 to the Supplementary Affidavit. No counter has been filed to the Supplementary Affidavit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the Inquiry report submitted by the Assistant Inspector General Registrar, Mainpuri, wherein he has found that the petitioner was appointed as he claimed.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, a direction is issued upon the respondent no.1 to consider the matter of the petitioner and pass appropriate order expeditiously in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations and order, writ petition is finally disposed of.
No order as to costs."
It is thereafter that the authority concerned has passed the order impugned. The order impugned records that the petitioner participated in the regular recruitment proceedings but he was not selected and was instead placed at Sl. No.1 in the waiting list. This waiting list seized to exist after 30.6.2019. It is further recorded that the petitioner was never appointed pursuant to his placement in the waiting list and that his engagement from 21.10.1991 to 20.11.1991 was against the leave vacancy, which came to an end after the regular incumbent joined.
Though various arguments have been advanced on behalf of the petitioner but the recital of facts, noticed above, is not in dispute. In view of the fact that the petitioner has not been selected and his engagement otherwise was for a short period against the leave vacancy, this Court finds no good ground to interfere with the order impugned.
Writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 n.u.