Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3165 of 2019 Petitioner :- Salikram Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhakar Shukla,Diwakar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Diwakar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pranjal Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1,2 and 4.
The only relief claimed in the writ petition is for a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondent no. 2 &3 to decide the representation dated 23.06.2018 of the petitioner.
Such a relief cannot be granted as the petitioner does not have any statutory right in his favour to get such representation decided nor there is any statutory obligation on the part of the respondents to decided such representation. Reference may be made to a decision of this Court in the case reported in 2001(1) AWC 671, Daya Shankar Pande vs. State of U.P. and others. Para 15 of the said judgment reads as follows:-
"15.The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that against the order passed by D.I.O.S. disapproving petitioner's appointment, the petitioner has filed an appeal/representation on 16.3.1999 before the Deputy Director of Education on 14.11.2000 and a direction be issued for deciding the aforesaid appeal/representation. The argument is devoid of any merit for two reasons. Firstly, Second Order under which the appointments on short-term vacancies are made, do not provide for any appeal/representation to the Deputy Director of Education or the Director of Education. The provision of appeal was only in First Order where appointments against substantive vacancies were made. Since the State Government did not provide for any appeal or representation to the educational authorities against short-term appointments, the appeal/representations of the petitioner were not made under any provision of law, therefore, no direction can be issued for deciding the same. The other reason is that First and Second Orders have been deleted with effect from 25.1.1999 and they being no more in existence, any appeal/representation under First or Second Orders could not be made by the petitioner. Further, it having been held that the appointment of petitioner was defective as it had been made without following the mandatory procedure under the Removal of Difficulties Orders no direction can be issued to educational authorities to decide the appeal/representation of the petitioner."
The writ petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition seeking proper relief.
Order Date :- 29.1.2019 JK Yadav