DHIRENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. COMMISSIONER, KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were given training as vaccinatora. Admittedly, there are 14 vacant posts of vaccinators in Nagar Nigam, Kanpur. The petitioners claim that the said 14 posts were advertised 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 appointment. 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 representation by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, the petitioners further preferred a representation before the Commissioner, which was rejected by an order dated 23.4.1996 contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition. 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 reliance 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 incumbent upon the Nagar Nigam to give appointment to the petitioners against said 14 posts.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.