LAWS(ALL)-1993-6-4

PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On June 30, 1993
PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Singh, J. By means of this petition, the petitioner, Pramod Kumar Singh, has sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint him against existing vacancy in the post of Sinch Paryavekshak in the Department. The basis on which the relief aforestated has been claimed by the petitioner is that his father Sri Dina Nath Singh a marginal farmer having a very small holding or agricultural land in his native village besides a building site, all of which were acquired by the State Government in 1967 in connection with a lift canal project and as a result of the acquisition, it is alleged, the petitioner's father Sri Dina Nath Singh became a displaced person and the petitioner, it is further alleged, is entitled to be appointed as 'sinch Paryavekshak' in the Department on the strength of G. O. No. 23/26/1976-Karmik-2, dated 7-9-1976, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The defence, in opposition of the relief claimed, is that the land acquired in 1967 for the purposes of construction of the canal included a very small piece of the land belonging to the petitioner for he was paid compensation and that the G. O. issued by the State Government for giving appointment to one member of the family of a person whose land has been acquired applied only in the case of acquisition for the purposes of setting up an industry. Reliance has been placed on the G. O. , dated 15-6- 1985 read with G. O. dated 22-10-1992 (Annexure-C. A.-l and C. A.-2 respectively to the counter affidavit filed by Sri Ghanshyam Das Garg, Executive Engineer, Sharda Sahayak Khand-32, Azamgarh ). It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner's father was displaced from abadi site admeasuring 10 decimal land did not form his agricultural land. As such the petitioner was not entitled to a job as a matter of right merely on the strength of G. O. relied upon by him.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned standing counsel were heard.