LAL BAHADUR Vs. D.I.O.S. AND ANR.

LAWS(ALL)-2011-2-459

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Decided on February 18,2011

LAL BAHADUR Appellant

VERSUS

D.I.O.S. And Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) (i) Civil Misc. Restoration Application No. 127006 of 2010 Heard learned Counsel for the applicant. The review application filed by the Petitioner on 20th May, 2009 to review the judgment and order dated 14th October, 2004 was dismissed for want of prosecution on 24th July, 2009. An application with delay condonation application has been filed for recalling the order dated 24th July, 2009. In the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application and the restoration application, it is stated that Sri B.P. Srivastava, who had filed review application, had died in the month of March 2009. There were two counsel appearing in the matter. The clerk of the other counsel by mistake could not mark the case. We find that the delay in filing the restoration application has been sufficiently explained. The delay condonation application is, accordingly, allowed. We also allow the restoration application filed for recalling the order dated 24th July, 2009 for the reasons mentioned in the affidavit. (ii) Civil Misc. Review Application No. 205017 of 2004 We have heard learned Counsel for the applicant -Petitioner. Learned standing counsel appears for Respondents. The Special Appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.7.2004 of the learned Single Judge, was dismissed on 14.10.2004, on the ground that the Petitioner's appointment as CT Grade teacher in Bala Prasad Kushwaha Inter College, Allahabad, was not made in accordance with the provisions First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 . The court relied upon Full bench decision of the Court in Radha Raizada and Ors. v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College and Ors., (1994) 3 UPLBEC 1551 holding that if the contingency arises for ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment, the procedure provided for under the First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 has to be followed. The ad hoc appointment of the Petitioner was found to be illegal. The advertisement was not made in widely circulated newspapers. It was only pasted on the notice board of the college. It is stated in the review petition that the applicant was duly qualified and continued in terms of the stay order dated 30.6.1987, granted in writ petition No. 11045 of 1987. At the age of 43 years, the dismissal of the writ petition, has operated harshly upon the Petitioner and his family members. We do not find that any good ground has been raised, to review the judgment. The Special Appeal was dismissed following judgment of the court in Radha Raizada case, with the findings that the Petitioner was not appointed after selections in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The review petition is dismissed.;

Click here to view full judgement.