Court No. - 43
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9393 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar Mishra Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Sarwar Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archit Mandhyan,Kailash Singh Kushwaha
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a direction to respondent Commission to entertain petitioner's application pursuant to advertisement issued by it on 5.12.2018 for appointment to various Group 'C' and 'D' post in U.P. Mandi Parishad on the basis of observations of the Apex Court in Appeal (Civil) No.4092 of 2001, decided on 16.12.2005.
Petitioner alleges that he was initially appointed in the Mandi Parishad in 1996 and his services were terminated arbitrarily by oral orders in the year 1997. Writ petitions are stated to have been filed by aggrieved persons and the matter ultimately was taken to Supreme Court wherein following observations were made on 16.12.2015:-
"We, however, direct the Board and the Market Committees to fill up all existing vacancies strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months from date. While doing so, amongst other eligible candidates, the candidature of the employees whose services have been terminated should also be taken into consideration and in the event, the appropriate authority of the Market Committees or the Board can relax the age bar, the same would be done. The respective Market Committees, however, in the meanwhile, if for exigencies of the work, intend to appoint any person, it may do so. However, post facto approval therefor should be obtained from the Board. In the offers of appointment which may be issued to such temporary or adhoc employees it shall be made clear that their appointment would be adhoc in nature and the same shall be co-terminus with the appointment of regular employees."
It appears that recruitment process has now been initiated and persons before the Apex Court have been granted age relaxation and their candidature and applications are being entertained by the Commission. Grievance is that petitioner is identically placed but only because he has not approached the Apex Court, the respondents are not entertaining his application.
Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer made in the writ petition.
Alongwith writ petition an order of appointment dated 24.6.1996 has been brought on record whereby petitioner has been appointed for a period of 89 days. There is nothing on record to show that such appointment was extended any further. No order of termination has otherwise been brought on record. Merely a bald averment that petitioner's services were extended thereafter would not be relevant in the absence of any material to support such contention. Even otherwise, petitioner's engagement at best was for 89 days and any extension would not change the nature of his engagement. It is otherwise admitted that petitioner has not worked after 1997 and he has not raised any grievance in that regard.
Having acquiesced to the decision of the respondents, it would not be open for the petitioner to raise his grievance now after expiry of 22 years, nor the petitioner can claim parity with those who have pursued their rights. Petitioner has also not been able to substantiate that his claim is identically placed with those who had approached the Apex Court in Appeal (Civil) No.4092 of 2001.
In that view of the matter, no direction is required to be issued for consideration of petitioner's claim, as is prayed for in the writ petition. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.5.2019 Ashok Kr.