IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Chapter VIII, Rule 32(2) (b) Description of case Writ Petition No. 344 of 2002 (M/B) Date of decision: 20th June, 2006 A.F.R. (Approved for Reporting) Not Approved for Reporting Date 20.06.2006. Initials of Judge Not: Bench Reader will attach this at the top of first page of the judgment when it is put up before the Judge for signature. IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 344 of 2002 (M/B) Arun Kumar S/o Sri Palu Das, R/o Village Kheldi, Bhadrabad. ........... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal, through Secretary, Finance. 2. Collector, Haridwar. 3. Senior Treasury Officer, Haridwar. ............ Respondents Mr. Sharad Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Standing Counsel for the respondents. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. RAJEEV GUPTA, C. J. (Oral) Mr. Sharad Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Standing Counsel for the respondents. They are heard on admission. 2. Petitioner Arun Kumar has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs: “(a) To issue writ or order direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize the petitioner on the post of peon (4th class) and further to allow the petitioner to sign the attendance register. (b) To issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay up to date salary to the petitioner. (c) To pass such further orders or directions which are just and proper in the facts of the case.” 3. Mr. Sharad Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the respondents have not regularised the petitioner’s services though he is serving them for the last about 8 years. 4. Admittedly, the prescribed procedure was not followed in the appointment of the petitioner. The post was never advertised in any newspaper and no applications were invited from the aspirants for the post. 5. The irregularities committed in the appointment of the petitioner are spelt out in paras 4 to 9 of the counter affidavit, which read as follows: “4. ;g fd fjV ;kfpdk dk izLrj&2 ftl izdkj ;kph }kjk of.kZr fd;k x;k gS] vLohdkj gSA ;kph] tks gfj}kj dks’kkxkj] vf/k’Bku esa dk;Zjr lgk;d dks’kf/kdkjh Jh ikywnkj dk iq= gSA blh izdkj vfu;fer ,oa voS/k <ax ls fu;ksftr ,d vU; dkfeZd Jh eksgu dqekj] tks rRdkyhu vf/k’Bku lgk;d Jh johUnz JhokLro dk lxk lkyk gS] izkjfEHkd tkWpksijkUr budh fu;qfDr;kW fof/klEer ugha ik;h x;hA bl vk/kkj ij ftykf/kdkjh] gfj}kj ds i=kad 93@dks’k&f’kfoj@dk;kZy;@2001&2002 fnukad 14-12-2001 }kjk rRdkyhu vf/k’Bku lgk;d Jh jfoUnz JhokLro dks fuyfEcr dj fn;k x;k FkkA bl fuyEcu vkns’k ds fos:) ;ksftr flfoy fjV ;kfpdk la0 7245 ¼ ,l0,l0½@2001 esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr LFkxu vkns’k fnukad 21- 12-01 esa izfr’kiFki= yxk;k tk pqdk gSA bl izdkj lEiw.kZ izdj.k iwoZ ls gh U;kf;d ifjf/k esa gSA okLro esa 'kklu ds i=kad ,l&3@2217@11@nl&99 fnukad 28-8-99 }kjk fu;qfDr;ksa ij izfrcU/k yxk fn;s tkus ds dkj.k rRdkyhu vf/k’Bku lgk;d Jh johUnz JhokLro us feyh Hkxr dj euekus rjhds ls i{kikriw.kZ <ax ls diViwoZd 11 ekg dh cSd MsfVax dj dsoy mDr nksuksa dkfeZdksa dh] tks dks’kkxkj] gfj}kj esa fu;qfDr dkfeZdksa ds fudV lEcU/kh Fks] dh fu;qfDr uksV 'khV ij fcuk l{ke vf/kdkjh ¼ftykf/kdkjh] gfj}kj½ dh Lohd`fr ds rRdkyhu ofj’B dks’kkf/kdkjh }kjk vuqeksfnr djk yhA oLrqr% ;kph lfgr fu;r osru ij ,d vU; dkfeZd ds ;kstu dks fu;qfDr dh Js.kh esa ugha j[kk tk ldrk] D;ksafd bu fu;qfDr;ksa gsrq u rks lekpkj i=ksa esa dksbZ foKkiu izdkf’kr gqvk vkSj u gh lsok;kstu dk;kZy; ls vgZ dkfeZdksa dh lwph izkIr dh x;hA bl gsrq u rks dksbZ p;u lfefr ?kksf"kr dh x;h vkSj u gh l{ke vf/kdkjh dh Lohd`fr izkIr dj fofo/kr fu;qDr vkns’k fuxZr fd;k x;kA nksuks dkfeZdksa ds dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus lEcfU/kr dksbZ izek.kd Hkh vfHkys[k esa ugh gS ,oa budh vDVqcj 98 ls mifLFkfr ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ izek.d ugh gSA nksuksa dkfeZdks dks 10@98 ls 9&99 rd dh vof/k dk 12 ekg dk fu;r osru :0 61]200@ ,d lkFk fnukad 31&10&99 dks vkgfjr dj rRdkyhu vf/k"Bku lgk;d Jh johUnz JhokLro us izkIr fd;kA 12 ekg rd osruiwoZ esa fu;fer vkgfjr u fd;s tkus ,oa ,d lkFk fnukad 31&10&99 dks vkgfjr fd;k tkuk Hkh bldh vizR;{k iqf"V djrk gS fd mDr 'kklukns’k fnukad 28&7&99 dks vizHkkoh cukus ds mn~ns’; ,oa ljdkjh /ku ds diViw.kZ vkgj.k dj futh iz;ksxkFkZ 11 ekg dh cSd MsfVax tkucw>dj fu;e fo:) dh x;hA dsoy nks gh fudV lEcfU/k;ksa ds vkosnu i= izkIr dj mUgh nksuks dks voS?k fu;qfDr iznku dj vkijkf/kd izo`fr dk d`R; gSA bl izdkj mijksDr rRFksa ds vk/kkj ij ;kph dk ;g dFku fd og 10@98 ls ,d vU; dkfeZd Jh eksgu dqekj ds lkFk fu;r osru :0 2550@ ij fu;qDr gS] vlR; gSA okLro esa ;g fu;qfDr dh Js.kh esa vkPNkfnr ugh gksrk gSA bl dze esa ikywnkl dk izkFkZuki= i= fnukad 18&8&2001] izkjfEHkd tkWp vk[;k fnukad 23&8&2001] dk;kZy; vkns’k fnukad 14&12&2001] fjV ;kfpdk la0 7245@2001 esa nkf[ky izfr’kiFki=] i= fnukad 28&7&99 ,oa eq[; jksdfM+;k ds i= dh Nk;kizfr;ksa dze’k% layXud lh0,0 1] lh0,0 2] lh0,0 3] lh0,0 4] lh0,0 5] lh0,0 6 ,oa lh0,0 7 ds :i es layXu dh tk jgh gSA 5 ;g fd fjV ;kfpdk dk izLrj 3 ftl izdkj ;kph }kjk of.kZr fd;k x;k gS] vLohdkj gSA ;kph dk 1@10@98 ls ;ksxnku fd;s tkus lEcU/kh dksbZ Hkh izek.kd dk;kZy; vfHkys[kksa esa ugh gS] u gh ;kph dks dksbZ fu;qfDr i= tkjh fd;k x;k gSA dk;kZy; dh xksiuh; i=koyh dh izfr ;kph dks dSls izkIr gks x;h gS] ;g Hkh ,d fopkj.kh; fcUnq gSA ;kph ;fn okLro esa 10@98 ls fof/kor fu;qDr gksrk] rks dks"kkxkj vf/k"Bku ds vU; dkfeZdksa dh rjg izfrekg 10@98 ls gh osru varj.k mlds [kkrs esa tek gksrkA oLrqr% rRle; fu;qDr fu;qDr dks"kkf/kdkjh ,ao vf/k"Bku lgk;d us euekus o voS/k rjhds ls i{kikriw.k joS;k viukrs gq, yxHkx : 1]07]100@& dk vfu;fer Hkqxrku dj ljdkj dks jktLo {kfr igqapkbZA bl gsrq i`Fkd ls funs’kd] dks"kkxkj ,o foRr lsok;sa] mRRjkpay] nsgjknwu us vius i= fnaukd 10 tuojh] 2002 ds }kjk rRdkyhu ofj"B dks"kkf/kdkjh Jh ,0,l0 jk.kk ds fo:) fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh djus gsrq lfpo] foRr] m0iz 'kklu y[kuÅ] ,oa funs’kd] dks"kkxkj] m0iz0 tokgj Hkou y[kum dks fy[kk x;k] ftl ij dk;Zokgh izLrkfor gS lkFk gh rRdkyhu vf/k"Bku lgk;d] Jh johUnz JhokLro ds fo:) Hkh vyx ls foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dh tk jgh gSA fdlh vf/kdkjh o vf/k"Bku lgk;d dh feyhHkxr ,o nq:fHklf/k dj vfu;fer ,oa voS/k Hkqxrku dj nsus ls fdlh O;fDRk dk fu;qfDr dk Loeso oS/k nkok ugha gks tkrk gS] tSlk fd bl izfr’kiFki= ds iLrj 4 esa Li"V fd;k tk pqdk gS fd fdlh Hkh n`f"Vdks.k ls ;s inLFkkiuk fu;qfDr dh Js.kh esa ugh vkrhA bl dze esa i= fnukad 10 tuojh] 2002 dh Nk;kizfr layXxd lh0,0 8 ds :i esa layXu dh tk jgh gSA 6- ;g fd ;kfpdk dk izLrj&4 ftl izdkj ;kph }kjk of.kZr fd;k x;k gS] vLohdkj gSA fnukad 3@7@2002 dks u;s ofj’B dks"kkf/kdkjh ds gfj}kj esa ;ksxnku xzg.k djus ,oa ,d f’kdk;rh i= ij funs’kk;y Lrj ls tkWp izkjEHk gks tkus ds dkj.k ;kph us Loa; dk;kZy; vkuk cUn dj fn;k] D;ksafd ;kph dks viuh voS/k fu;qfDr dk Loa; Kku FkkA fnukad 2&8&2001 dks ;kph }kjk izLrqr fjV ds layXud&3 ij ;kph }kjk vkosnu i= izLrqr fd;s tkus dh ckr >wBh ,oa fujk/kkj gSA ,slk dksbZ i= dk;kZy; vfHkys[k esa ugha gSA 7- ;g fd fjV ;kfpdk dk izLrj&5 ftl izdkj ;kph }kjk of.kZr fd;k x;k gS] vLohdkj gSA ;fn ;kph oS/k :i ls fu;qDr gksrk rks vkfMV ds dkj.k mudks Hkqxrku jskdus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugh FkkA ;kph vkt ds fnukad rd dk;kZy; esa fu;fer :i ls dk;Z djus gsrq dHkh Hkh mifLFkr ugha gqvkA ;kph }kjk fnukad 4&5&2002 dks vkosnu i= izLrqr fd;s tkus dh ckr Hkh ljklj >wBh ,oa Hkzked gSA lk{; Lo:i orZeku vf/k"Bku lgk;d dh vk[;k layXud lh0,0&9 ds :i esa lyXu dh tk jgh gSA ;kph ds lkFk gh voS/k :i ls fu;r osru ij rRle; fu;ksftr ,d vU; dkfeZd Jh eksgu dqekj Hkh rHkh ls dk;kzy; esa fu;fer :i ls dk;Z djus gsrq dHkh Hkh mifLFkr ugh gqvk vkSj u gh osru HkRrksa dh ekWx dhA ;kph dks osru fn;s tkus dk of.kZr ifjfLFfr;ksa esa dkbZ nkok gh mRiUu ugh gksrk gSA 8- ;g fd fjV ;kfpdk dk izLrj&6 ftl izdkj ;kph }kjk of.kZr fd; x;k gS] vLohdkj gSA ;kph us fnukad 4&5&2002 dks fyf[kr dksbZ vkosnu i= iathd`r Mkd ls dks"kkxkj esa izsf"kr ugh fd;kA ;fn ;kph fu;fer :i ls dk;kZy; esa dk;Z gsrq mifLFkr gks jgk Fkk rks mlus Mkd izkfIr lgk;d dks gh viuk i= D;ksa ugh izkIr djk;kA blls Li"V gS fd >wBh is’kcUnh djus gsrq ;kph Hkzked rF; izLrqr dj jgk gSA ;kph us fu;fer ofj"B dks"kkf/kdkjh ds vodk’k dh vof/k esa vius firk Jh ikywnkl] lgk;d dks"kkf/kdkjh ds izHkkjh ojf"B dks"kkf/kdkjh ds :i esa dk;Zjr jgus dh vof/k esa gh dsoy ,d vkosnu i= fnukad 6&6&2002 dks izLrqr fd;kA i= fnukad 6&6&2002 dh Nk;kizfr layXud lh0,0&10 ds :i esa layXu dh tk jgh gSa vkSj fnukad 27&6&2002 dks gh iz’uxr fjV ;kfpdk izLrqr dh x;hA blls Li"V gS fd ;kph us bu vkosnu i=ksa ds }kjk rF;ksa dks Nqikus ,oa Hkzked ,oa xyr vk/kkj ij ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ls osru Hkqxrku gsrq vuqjks/k fd;k gS] tks fd vekU; gSA 9- ;g fd fjV ;kfpdk dk izLrj&7 ftl izdkj ;kph }kjk of.kZr fd;k x;k gS] vLohdkj gSA ;kph foxr ,d o"kZ esa dHkh Hkh dk;kZy; esa mifLFr ugh gqvkA voS/k ,oa vfu;fer fu;qfDr ds dkj.k ;kph Loeso mifLFkr gksus dk lkgl ugha dj ldkA ;kph us dk;kZy; esa mifLFkr gksus dk dksbZ izek.k Hkh lk{; Li:i ek0m0 U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr ugh fd;kA vr,o ;kph dk dFku iw.kZr;k vlR; gSA pwWfd ;kph ls iz’uxr vof/k esa dksbZ dk;Z ugha fy;k x;k gS ,oa u gh ;kph foxr ,d o"kZ ls dks"kkxkj vf/k"Bku esa fu;ksftr gSA vr,o osru Hkqxrku fd;s tkus dk dksbZ nkok mRiUu ugha gksrk gSA” 6. For the reasons best known to the petitioner, no rejoinder affidavit has been filed to controvert the above factual averments in the counter affidavit, which was filed in the year 2002. 7. From the above-quoted paras 4 to 9 of the counter affidavit, it is evident that petitioner Arun Kumar was the son of the then Assistant Treasury Officer, Haridwar Palu Das. The petitioner’s appointment is full of irregularities. 8. The Apex Court, in the case of Vinod Kumar Gupta and others Vs. Ram Ashray Mahoto and others reported in (2005) 4 SCC 209 while considering the right of an irregularly appointed person, observed in paras 11 to 13: “11. In our opinion the High Court’s conclusion is unimpeachable . Rules 73 and 77, assuming them to be constitutionally valid, do not prescribe the mode for the empanelment of the candidates. In 1992, the High Court framed the Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class III and Class IV) Rules, 1992. Rule 7 prescribes advertisements in two daily newspapers in addition to notices on the notice board of the district headquarters as well as the sub- divisional headquarters. It may be that the Rules had no application in 1990 when the appellants were sought to be appointed. Nevertheless as early as in 1984, the High Court had issued a directive on its administrative side in which it was stated that for appointment to Class IV staff in the civil courts, it would not be necessary to advertise the vacancies in the State-level newspapers, but that notices should be placed on the notice board of the respective civil court premises and in the local daily newspaper of the district. This directive was binding on the District Judge. In view of the express instructions, it was not open either to the Nazir, or the Judge-in-charge or the District Judge or the Inspecting Judge to have acted to the contrary in filling up the posts. Admittedly, there was no advertisement issued in any newspaper at all. Furthermore, as far as the second lot of appointees is concerned, there is no evidence of the District judge putting up any notice even on the notice board. 12. Indeed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants conceded this position but contended that since they had continued to serve for the last 15 years, a selection could be held amongst Appellants 15 to 27. As far as the first 14 are concerned, it is submitted that they should be permitted to continue as there had been an advertisement. 13. The “advertisement” was no “advertisement” as required by the High Court. Without adequate notice no fair opportunity was given to others who might have applied. Apart from this, it does not appear from the records that three was any selection procedure followed at all. There is no explanation why the Selection Committee had been bypassed nor any acceptable reason why the persons who had applied as far back as in 1986 were ignored. This singular lack of transparency supports the finding of the High Court that the appointments were not made bona fide. The District Judge, who was ultimately responsible for the appointment of Class IV staff violated all norms in making the appointments. It is regrettable that the instructions of the High Court were disregarded with impunity and a procedure evolved for appointment which cannot be said to be in any way fair or above board. The submission of the appellants that they had been validly appointed is in the circumstances unacceptable. Nor can we accede to their prayer to continue in service. No doubt, at the time of issuance of the notice on the special leave petition, this Court had restrained the termination of services of the appellants. However, having regard to the facts of the case as have emerged, we are of the opinion that this Court cannot be called upon to sustain such an obvious disregard of the law and principles of conduct according to which every judge and anyone connected with the judicial system are required to function. If we allow the appellants to continue in service merely because they have been working in the posts for the last 15 years we would be guilty of condoning a gross irregularity in their initial appointment. The High Court has been more than generous in allowing the appellants to participate in any fresh selection procedure as may be held and in granting a relaxation of the age limit.” 9. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the above-quoted dictum of the Apex Court, we do not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner, who got his appointment by way of back door entry. The petitioners’ appointment, apparently, is an act of favouritism by the authorities concerned. 10. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Sharad Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner that he writ petition should not be heard by a Division Bench and should be sent for hearing on admission before a Single Bench, as admittedly the writ petition, on the date of its filing, was cognizable by a Division Bench and it was so listed before a Division Bench on 25.05.2004, 05.06.2004 and 23.07.2004 and no such objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is, hereby, dismissed summarily. 12. Consequently, the interim order dated 28.06.2002 stands vacated automatically. (Prafulla C. Pant, J) (Rajeev Gupta, C. J.) 20.06.2006 20.06.2006 G