SHAILENDRA KUMAR TANDON Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) By means of this petition, the petitioner has inter alia challenged an order dtd. 1/9/2008 passed by opposite party no.4 i.e. the then Registrar, U.P. Pharmacy Council and another order dtd. 14/11/2018 passed by opposite party no.3- the President of the U.P. Pharmacy Council. Inquiry Report dtd. 27/9/2018 containing findings of a Committee constituted by the State Government in pursuance to orders passed by this Court in these proceedings to ascertain the veracity of the appointment of the petitioner as claimed has also been challenged by way of an amendment to the writ petition.

(3.) The facts of the case in brief are that according to the petitioner he was engaged vide order dtd. 12/4/1982 as Junior Assistant for three months on temporary basis w.e.f. 12/4/1982 by an order of the same date. The said appointment was extended from time to time vide orders dtd. 11/7/1982, 8/10/1982, 7/1/1983. Ultimately, the Registrar who is the appointing authority of the said post in view of Rule 70 of U.P. Pradesh Pharmacy Rules made by the State Government under the Pharmacy Act, 1948, wrote to the President regarding arrangement for regular appointment of the petitioner or any other employee in place of Sri Yashkaran Singh whose work was not satisfactory. On this, as claimed by the petitioner, a noting was made by the President of the Council that considering report of the Registrar and the work of the petitioner, his tenure is extended but he also made the observation that regular appointment can only be made against a sanctioned post, therefore, the matter is referred to the Council. He further made the note that work should be taken from the petitioner regularly till further arrangement is made. Based on Annexure-4, the petitioner claims that the matter was placed in a meeting of the Council dtd. 28/7/1983. However, the said document contained in Annexure no.4 has been denied by the concerned opposite parties as it is not available in their records and it is alleged that the same is forged. The Court finds that at page no.29, the covering letter (annexed with the alleged resolution dtd. 28/7/1983) signed by the then Registrar-Sri S.K. Pathak does not bear the name of the addressee nor any dispatch number or date.