1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Vijay Singh vs State Of U P And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|21 February, 2019


Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2663 of 2019 Petitioner :- Vijay Singh Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.S. Bundela, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
This petition impugns an order dated 5 October 2016 pursuant to which the Chief Engineer, the second respondent herein has proceeded to interfere with an order dated 2 September 2016 passed by the Executive Engineer expunging adverse entries recorded against the petitioner for the years 2014-15 and 2015-
16. It has been principally contended that the impugned order has been passed ex parte and without notice to the petitioner. On a more fundamental plane learned counsel contends that the Chief Engineer was not moved in any appeal on the basis of which he could have exercised powers assuming that such an appeal at the instance of the respondents would lie. This submission is addressed in the backdrop of the language of Rule 11 of the 1999 Rules in terms of which it is only an aggrieved government servant who may invoke the appeallate jurisdiction. Additionally, learned counsel points out that even the power of suo motu revision could not have been exercised by the second respondent since that power stands vested exclusively in the State Government.
Sri Bundela, the learned Standing Counsel is unable to justisfy the jurisdiction and the authority which has been assumed and exercised by the Chief Engineer. It is also not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel that the jurisdiction of an appeal under Rule 11 can only be invoked by an aggrieved government servant. Sri Bundela, candidly admits that the Chief Engineer is not the State Government which alone has been conferred the jurisdiction of a suo motu revision under Rule 13 of the 1999 Rules. In view of the undisputed position, no purpose would be served in calling for Affidavits in this writ petition.
For the reasons aforenoted, the instant writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 5 October 2016 is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential reliefs.
Order Date :- 21.2.2019 Arun K. Singh (Yashwant Varma, J.)
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

Vijay Singh vs State Of U P And Others


High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

21 February, 2019
  • Yashwant Varma
  • Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari