GOVIND SINGH S/O SRI KASAM SINGH COORDINATOR BLOCK RESOURCE CENTRE PEERUMADARA RAMNAGAR NAINITAL Vs. STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR SURVA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
GOVIND SINGH S/O SRI KASAM SINGH COORDINATOR, BLOCK RESOURCE CENTRE PEERUMADARA, RAMNAGAR, NAINITAL
STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR, SURVA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) HEARD Mr. M. C. Kandpal, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. S. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Bisht, the learned Brief Holder for the State.
(2.) MANOJ Tiwari working as a Coordinator at Peerumadara, Ramnagar, Nainital was relieved pursuant to an order dated 28th July, 2011 passed by the District Project Officer and, in his place, Hari Krishan Joshi was directed to work as the Coordinator. The Block Project Officer, Ramnagar, District Nainital, by his letter dated 30th July, 2011 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) intimated the District Project Officer that since Hari Krishan Joshi is indisposed, the petitioner may be given the charge of Coordinator on a temporary basis, which was consented by the District Project Officer. Based on the said order, the petitioner joined as Coordinator at the aforesaid place.
Manoj Tiwari, being aggrieved by his relieving order, filed Writ Petition No. 982 of 2011 (S/S) in which the petitioner filed an intervention application. The said writ petition was disposed of by a judgment dated 16.11.2011. The writ court quashed the order dated 28th July, 2011 by which Manoj Tiwari was relieved. The court, however, directed the State Project Director to reconsider the matter and pass an appropriate order after hearing all parties, including the petitioner.
It transpires that the State Project Director considered the matter de-novo and passed the impugned order dated 04th February, 2012. By the said order, Manoj Tiwari was directed to join at B.R.C., Peerumadara, Ramnagar, Nainital and in so far as the petitioner was concerned, the State Project Director held that his appointment as Coordinator was only temporary and that the order directing him to work as Coordinator was not passed by the competent authority, namely the Block Project Officer and accordingly quashed his appointment letter. The petitioner, being aggrieved by this part of the order, has filed the writ petition.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, the court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief since Manoj Tiwari was a necessary party and he has not been impleaded in this writ petition. No relief can be granted on account of the non-impleadment of a necessary party. Manoj Tiwari was reinstated on the post on which the petitioner was working. Consequently, in his absence no relief can be granted. Further, the court finds that the appointment of the petitioner was only temporary and no lein was created and accordingly the appointment was rightly cancelled since the person who was originally working has now been placed back on that said post. Further, the court finds that the appointing authority is the District Project Officer and not the Block Project Officer. Nothing has come on record to state that the order passed by the Block Project Officer was passed on written orders given by the District Project Officer. In the absence of any written orders being issued by the District Project Officer, the petitioner could not be allowed to continue on the post of Coordinator on the direction of the Block Project Officer. The writ petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.