NARESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have prayed for :

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that all of them were appointed in the year 1996, on the posts and on the dates, detailed in Para 12 of writ petition, in Mandi Samiti, Varanasi, by the then Secretary of Samiti, after following due procedure, prescribed in Uttar Pradesh Agriculture Produce Market Committees (Centralized) Service Regulations, 1984 (for short the Regulations of 1984), framed under Sections 25-A and 26-X of Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964. They say that they continued working, on the respective posts in Class IV, till May, 1997, and it was on 26.5.1997 that the Addl. Director (Administration), Mandi Parishad, wrote a letter (Annexure No. 9) to the Regional Deputy Director, Varanasi, directing him not to take work from the petitioners and in compliance of these directions, the Secretary of Samiti passed an order (Annexure No. 10) on 28.5.1997, asking the petitioners to stop working. It was further clarified that, now on wards, the petitioners would not get any salary, till further orders of Mandi Parishad. It appears that on representation of the petitioners, certain orders such as 11.9.1997, were issued by Addl. Director for taking work, but before the same could be acted upon, the Director, Mandi Parishad, issued an order (Annexure No. 10) on 15.10.1997 cancelling the orders dated 8.10.1997 and 11.9.1997 of the Addl. Director. He set the controversy at rest by reiterating the earlier stand taken in letter of May, 1997. The petitioners have tried to say that their services have not formally been terminated and so they continue in service and are entitled to wages. since May, 1997.

(3.) The opposite parties No. 2 to 6, have contested the claim of the petitioners by saying that the appointment of the petitioners, in the year 1996, on the dates and on the posts, described in Para 12 of the writ petition, was not regular one and in accordance with Regulations of 1984, as the process of regular selection was postponed, by the Regional Deputy Director, the Chairman of the Selection Committee. They say that Shri Paramhans Singh, the then Secretary of Mandi Samiti, Varanasi any how succeeded in getting approval of the Director of Parishad for few adhoc appointments for a period of 89 days and taking advantage of this approval, he issued appointment letters to the petitioners, without disclosing therein that the engagement was for 89 days only. According to them, this engagement of the petitioners was extended once or twice, on the request and recommendation of Samiti, as regular selection was pending. It has also been alleged that there were no posts in Samiti, as the posts created vide order of 11.1.1995, were meant for the entire region, covering 18 Samitis, and 37 Sub-Market Yards. The opp. parties No. 2 to 6 have clearly stated that the Director refused to accord approval for extension of the term of the petitioners. According to them, the then Secretary of Varanasi Samiti was placed under suspension vide order dated 2.9.1997 for making illegal and irregular appointments. It has also been said that the services of the petitioners came to an end in May, 1997, and since then neither they are working nor salary is being paid to them. It is stated that similarly situated persons had filed a Writ Petition No. 40550 of 1997. Tarkeshwar Misra and Ors. v. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and Ors., before this Court at Allahabad, and the same was dismissed on 3.2.1998, holding that the appointments were illegal. The decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 6662 of 1997, Om Prakash v. Director, Mandi Parishad and in Writ Petition No. 508 of 1998, Mahesh v. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, are being relied on, for saying that in identical matters, this Court refused to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution.