VIJNESH KUMAR Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was engaged in Census Department during the period of census 1991 and claiming absorption pursuant to service rendered for a short time. It is not disputed that the petitioner was never appointed or engaged after the advertisement of vacancies, complying with the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, i.e., by giving equal opportunity for public employment to all eligible persons. The petitioner also could not place before the Court any statutory provision whereunder he can claim absorption. Similar question was considered in Imtiaz Ahmad v. Regional Deputy Director of Census Operation and others, : 2007 (3) ADJ 138 and referring to various Government Orders dealing in para 7 it was held as under:

(2.) A similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court (of which I was also a Member) in Sayed Mohammad Mahfooz v. State of U.P. and others, : 2007 (3) ADJ 46.

(3.) THE entire issue can also be looked into in the light of Constitution Bench decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, : 2006 (4) SCC 1, which has been followed recently also in State of West Bengal and others v. Banibrata Ghosh and others, : 2009 (3) SCC 250; Council of Scientific & Industrial Research and others v. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal and another, : 2009 (3) SCC 35; General Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi and others, : 2009 (7) SCC 205; and, State of Rajasthan and others v. Daya Lal and others, : 2011 (2) SCC 429.