KAMLESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.K.Kalia, Senior Advocate assisted by Rajan Roy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. N. C. Mehrotra, learned Counsel for Parishad and Mr. Sandeep Dixit, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.

(2.) Writ Petition No.311 (SB) of 1999 has been preferred by one Kanhaiya Lal and A.K. Kapoor, working as Assistant Engineer and Deputy Director (Construction) respectively in Mandi Parishad inter alia on the ground that absorption/appointment of private respondents, namely, P.C. Jain and J. K. Singh in Mandi Parishad is wholly illegal and de hors the rules. According to the petitioners, private respondents, namely, P.C.Jain and J.K.Singh were working as Assistant Engineers in the Rural Engineering Service Department, who came on deputation to the Mandi Parishad in the year 1992 and later on, vide order dated 18.4.1995 were given the charge of Deputy Director (Construction).Moreover, the private respondents were absorbed in the department without necessary approval of the State Government.

(3.) Writ Petition No.312 (SB) of 1999 has been filed by one Narendra Kumar and Raj Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad Takniki Sangh through its President inter alia claiming therein to declare the appointment/absorption of private respondents, namely, Fakrey Alam and Ram Teerath Yadav to be illegal and void. They further sought a writ of Certiorari for quashing the Government Orders dated 14.10.1995 so far as it relate to private respondents. The main contention is that U.P.Agricultural Produce Markets Board (Officers and Staff Establishment) Regulations, 1984 [ in short referred to as Service Regulations of 1984] being framed under Section 26 (x) of U.P.Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhniyam, 1964, have binding force and no appointment can be made ignoring the statutory provisions. Therefore, the private respondents who were working as Assistant Engineer in Bridge Corporation cannot be absorbed.