ASHWANI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA AND 4 OTHERS Vs. COLLECTOR, MEERUT AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-2008-9-290
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on September 08,2008

Ashwani Kumar Srivastava and 4 others Appellant
VERSUS
Collector, Meerut and others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

SUNIL AMBWANI, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri V.K. Singh, Senior Advocate for the petitioners. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State-respondents.
(2.) IN Writ Petition No. 19356 of 1985, the petitioners were appointed as Clerks in the Treasury office at Meerut on ad-hoc basis for a period of three months on 19.2.1985, by a specially constituted Selection Committee. Their services were terminated on 15.12.1985. Before the termination of their services the petitioners approached this Court and filed the writ petition on 12.12.1985. By an order dated 18.12.1988 the Court directed the case to be put up for admission on 10.1.1986 and till then the services of petitioners were directed not to be terminated. After a few adjournments and extension of interim orders on 9.12.1988 the writ petition was admitted and the interim order was directed to continue. In Writ Petition No. 19462 of 1985, the petitioners were appointed as Clerks in Treasury office at Meerut on ad-hoc basis for a period of three months on 4.10.1985 (petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3) and 5.10.1985 (petitioner No. 4) by a specially constituted Selection Committee. Their services were terminated on 16.12.1985. The petitioners approached this Court on 21.12.1985. By an order dated 21.12.1985 this Court passed an order directing the case to be put up for admission on 9.1.1986 and that till 9.1.1986 the services of petitioners may not be terminated. After a few extensions the writ petition was admitted on 9.12.1988 and the interim order was directed to continue.
(3.) A counter affidavit was filed in January, 1986 stating therein that petitioners were not appointed by duly constituted Selection Committee. The U.P. Subordinate Office Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules; 1975 were amended in 1979 and thereafter in 1985 and that after the amendments the selection could only be made by the District Selection Committee. It was stated that in the present case the District Selection Committee was not constituted. It is further stated that the petitioners did not disclose this fact to the Court that their services were terminated on 15.12.1985 and that on 16.12.1985 the duly selected candidates by the District Selection Committee had joined.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.