DHIRENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. COMMISSIONER KANPUR NAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. The petitioners were given training as vaccinators. Admittedly, there are 14 vacant posts of vaccinators in Nagar Nigam Kanpur. The petitioners claim that the said 14 posts were adver tised and the petitioners participated in the selection. But no selection was made nor result of the said selection declared and the petitioners were not given ap pointment. Therefore, the petitioners had filed a writ petition which was disposed of on 8-11-1993 by directing the respondents to consider the petitioners representation. Accordingly, their representation was considered by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari who instead of passing an order applying his own mind, had only endorsed the note or report prepared by the subordinate. Against such rejection of their repre sentation by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, the petitioners further preferred a repre sentation before the Commissioner, which was rejected by an order dated 23-4-1996 contained in Annexure-9 to the writ peti tion. The order of Mukhya Nagar Adhikari is Annexure-8 dated 1-5-1995 passed on the report dated 29-11-1994 (Annexure-7 ).

(2.) MR. V Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari had never applied its mind and had only endorsed' the report prepared by his subordinate and therefore, on account of non-application of mind, the said order cannot be sustained. The Commissioner having placed relance on the report of Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, the order passed by the Commissioner is also without any basis and therefore, the same cannot be supported. He further contends that since there are 14 posts vacant and financial aid is being received by the Nagar Nigam from the Government even against said 14 vacant posts, therefore, it is incum bent upon the Nagar Nigam to give ap pointment to the petitioner against said 14 posts.

(3.) THE question that a report was prepared by the subordinate, does not ap pear to be a sound proposition as has been sought to be made by Mr. Y Singh. All reports are prepared at the bottom by clerks and placed before the appropriate authority along with records. If the authority agrees with such report in that event, it endorses the same whereas in case of disagreement with the report, the authority prepares its own report if he thinks fit. THEre is no compulsion on the authority that after examining the record even if it agrees with the report prepared by its subordinate, that he should prepare his own report. From Annexure-8 it ap pears on the basis of such report the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari had taken his own decision which is apparent from the order dated 1-5-95 where he had given reasons. THErefore, it was not a total non-applica tion of mind which could erode the value of the said order. THE again, the order contained in Annexure-9 passed by the Commissioner is a detailed order giving detailed reasons. THE noting contains the fact of the representation made and the situation as stands. I have gone through the order passed by the learned Commis sioner and the reasons given therein. It does not appear that there is any infirmity in the said order. After applying his mind, he has passed a reasoned order. I do not find any reason to disagree with the reasons given therein. THEre being no necessity to the Nagar Nigam to employ vaccinators in the absence of any work, the Nagar Nigam cannot be compelled to employ vaccinators simply because they were trained as vaccinators even on ac count of existence of vacancies.