CHHOTKAN PRASAD Vs. CHIEF SECRETARY PANCHAYATI RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE special appeals have been filed against a common judgment and order dated 8th January, 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22874 of 2001 (Krishan Kant Tiwari and another v. State of U.P. and others,) and other connected writ petitions whereby the learned Single Judge had held that the Government Order dated 6th June, 2001 is a decision of the State Government and employees who were transferred by the Government Order dated 1st July, 2001 are not absorbed in any new service but are on deputation to Gram Panchayat and they can always be repatriated to their parent department. The learned Single Judge further held that there is no illegality in transferring Sinchpal (Canal Department), Male Health Workers (Medical Department) and Sinchpal (Bhumi Vikas Evam Jal Sansthan) and the provisions of the Government Orders dated 6th June, 2001 and 19th November, 2001repatriating them to their parent department are valid. However, the learned Single Judge held that paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the Government Order dated 6th June, 2001, as amended by the Government Order dated 21st September, 2001 by which Tube -well Operators and Cane Supervisors have been divided into two classes and the persons having qualification upto High School have been re -designated as Gram Panchayat Even Vikas Adhikari (Karyakram) are discriminatory and are quashed. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, these special appeals have been filed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to the present special appeals are as follows:

(3.) DR . R.G. Padia, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the original Government Order dated 1st July, 1999 was issued in the name of the Government of Uttar pradesh which was, in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act as amended by U.P. Act No. 27 of 1999, and also in conformity with Article 166 of the Constitution of India. However, the subsequent Government Order dated 6 -6 -2001 does not even mention that it has been issued by the Governor and it has been signed by the Chief Secretary in his individual capacity. Thus, it does not satisfy the requirement of Article 166 of the Constitution. It is pure and simple order signed and executed by the Chief Secretary who cannot amend the earlier order passed on behalf of the Governor. So far as the corrigendum dated 6th July, 2001 containing the clause that the 'Governer has been pleased to grant permission to issue the said order', is concerned, mere issuance of corrigendum will not validate an illegal and non -est order. He relied upon the following decisions in support of his submission: