KADAM SINGH S/O TIRKHARAM, POSTED AS ZILEDAR NORTHERN DIVISION GANGA CANAL, ROORKEE, DISTRICT HARDWAR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the order dated 19th June, 2009 impugned in the writ petition, it was held out that the appellant, who is Seench Supervisor, can only discharge the duties of Ziledar with the approval of the higher authority and, in order to discharge the duties of Ziledar, is required to pass a particular examination. It was held out that the copy of the certificate showing that the appellant has passed the said examination, despite request, has not been furnished. It was also stated that the approval of the higher authority has also not been accorded. In the circumstances, by the order impugned, engagement of the appellant as Ziledar Araji I was cancelled. Operation of this order was stayed by an order passed on 24th June, 2009 by the writ Court. Thereafter a stay vacation application was filed, which was decided on 26th November, 2009, when it was clarified that on the strength of the interim order, appellant shall not be allowed to hold two posts. It was also clarified that the appellant will continue to hold the charge of post of Ziledar Araji II. We are of the view that this order created confusion inasmuch as the order under challenge in the writ petition had nothing to do with the post of Ziledar Araji II. The same was right of the appellant to discharge the duties and functions of Ziledar. In order to clarify the confusion, another application was filed by the appellant, which created more confusion by reason of the order under challenge. In this order, it has been held that whether the appellant should be allowed to work as Ziledar Araji I or not, is not the subject matter of the writ petition, whereas the same is squarely the subject matter of the writ petition. Be that as it may, since the writ petition is lying ready in all respect since 26th November, 2009, we desire that the same be decided on merit as quickly as possible and, accordingly, we make a request to the writ Court to hear and decide the writ petition on merit at the earliest.

(2.) IT is made clear that none of the orders prevented the appellant to discharge the duties of Ziledar Araji II and, instead, rightly or wrongly there are positive directions permitting the appellant to hold the post of Ziledar Araji II. That being the situation, until the writ petition is heard and decided on merits the appellant should be permitted to discharge the duties of Ziledar Araji II.