SATYA PRAKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Vipin Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Yatindra, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

(2.) These writ petitions were heard together on 18.07.2016 and facts as well as submissions of learned counsels for the parties, were noted as under:

(3.) Today, Sri Saxena submits that non-observance of the Rules in recruiting the petitioners in accordance with the government order, was merely an irregularity and for that reason, the selection and appointment of the petitioners cannot be said to be illegal or void. He further submits that since no fraud was practised by the petitioners to obtain the employment and as such merely because recruitment was not made in accordance with the Rules in force, neither post retirement benefits to those employees who have retired, can be denied nor salary received by the petitioners during continuance of interim order can be recovered. In support of his submissions, he relies upon a decision in the case of Chiraunji Lal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 3 UPLBEC 2072 (para-22).