RAJVEER SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the orders dated 2 -6 -2001 passed by the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra and the consequent order made by the respondent No. 2 dated 21 -12 -2001.

(2.) THE matrix of necessary facts is that the petitioner who had entered the service as Clerk in the Zila Parishad, Aligarh in the year 1967, came to be promoted as senior clerk and thereafter as Accountant in the year 1984. In the year 1993, his career suffered a set -back when his services came to be terminated vide order dated 5 -6 -1993. The petitioner challenged the order of termination by filing a writ petition in which the Court in its discretion granted interim order on 26 -9 -93 staying operation of the termination order. Without going into minute details, it would suffice to state that ultimately, the termination order came to be recalled by the appointing authority vide order dated 16 -5 -2000 and the petitioner was re -situated in service. As a necessary consequence of reinstatement of the petitioner by means of the order dated 16 -5 -2000, the Opp. Party No. 4 who had been drafted to hold officiating charge on the post of Accountant in between the period, was ordered to be relegated to his substantive post and aggrieved, the Opp. Party No. 4 preferred representation before the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra. The representation culminated in being allowed and the order reverting the Opp. Party No. 4 to his substantive post was set aside and it is this order allowing the representation of the Opp. Party No. 4 i.e. the order dated 2 -6 -2001, which is the subject -matter of impungment in the petition in hand.

(3.) SRI Murlidhar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Opp. Party No. 4 canvassed that proviso to Section 46 (2) (b) of the U.P. Kshetra Samitis and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam, 1961 provides for representation before the Commissioner and representation was made to the Commissioner impugning the order dated 17th May, 2000 by which the Opp. Party No. 4 was relegated to his substantive post of clerk from the post of Accountant. He further submitted that as the petitioner was not aggrieved by the order dated 16 -5 -2000, there was ostensibly no occasion for him to prefer any appeal or representation against the said order and rather, proceeded the submission, he was aggrieved against, the order reverting him from the post of the Accountant to the post of Accounts Clerk, he rightly filed the appeal/representation. He further alleged that as the order dated 16 -5 -2000 was not challenged the petitioner was neither a necessary party nor any notice was required to be given.