PREM SINGH BORA Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 12-12-2005 (copy Annexure 3 to the writ petition), whereby petitioner's appoint ment on the post of Peon, has been kept in abeyance. A mandamus has also been sought directing the respondents not to interfere in the working of the pe titioner as Peon. BY amendment a fur ther writ has been sought in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 01-02-2007 (copy Annexure 7 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no. 2.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, coun ter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit.

(3.) BUT the counter affidavit is silent as to what prevented the authorities con cerned from allocating the employee (Sri Ganga Singh Bora, father of the peti tioner) either of the successor States. The communication made by the State Advisory Committee has no force of law under Section 73 of the U. P Reorgani sation Act, 2000 as it is not an order passed by Government of India. This Court is of the view that neither a dead person could have been allocated new successor State (as against the State where he was working) nor could have a dead person joined his duties in such other successor State. As such the con tention of learned counsel for the respondents is misconceived that because of non-allocation of new successor State , by the Government of India to Sri Ganga Singh Bora, father of the peti tioner, petitioner's appointment could not have been considered on compas sionate ground by the State of Uttarakhand. In this connection, this Court thinks it just and proper to men tion the provisions contained in Section 75 of U. P Reorganisation Act, 2000 : "75. Provisions as to continu ance of officers in same post.- (1) Every person who, immediately be fore the appointed day is holding or discharging the duties of any post or office in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Uttar Pradesh in any area which on that day falls within any of the successor States shall continue to hold the same post or office in that successor State, and shall be deemed, on and from that day, to have been duly ap pointed to the post or office by the Government of, or any other appro priate authority in that successor State : Provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a compe tent authority, on and from the ap pointed day, from passing in relation to such person any order affecting the continuance in such post or office. "