JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)HEARD Sri Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the Opp. Party No. 1 and Sri N.C. Mehrotra, learned counsel for Opp. Party Nos. 2 to 4.
(2.)THE petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 27-9-2001 and the order dated 3-9-2001, by which the petitioner has been asked to join the parent department, has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Consti tution of India.
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was duly selected by U. P. Public Service Commission on the post of Assistant Engineer in the Housing Department of Ur ban Land Ceiling and was posted at Varanasi. Thereafter, by the order dated 13-6-1995, he was sent on deputation by the State Govern ment to the Mandi Parishad for a period of one year. Petitioner continued working with the Mandi Parishad on deputation till the impugned order was passed on 27-9-2001 by the Opp. Parties.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 7-11-1996, a no objection cer tificate was issued by the Urban Land Ceil ing Department for absorption of the peti tioner in Mandi Parishad, which the State Government also approved on 11-7-1997. He further submits that the Urban Land Ceiling Department, has been abolished as The Ur ban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 has been repealed by the Ordinance No. 5 of 1999 dated 11-1-1999. He further submits that one Sri Awadhesh Kumar Mishra from other department has been absorbed in Mandi Parishad on 9-5-2003 and, therefore, the pe titioner is also entitled for his absorption in Mandi Parishad.
(3.)SRI N. C. Mehrotra, the learned counsel for the Opp. Party Nos. 2 to 4 submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 27-9-2001, by which the absorption of the petitioner in the Mandi Parishad has been refused. He further submits that the board of the Mandi Parishad has already taken a deci sion on 25-6-1999 not to absorb any person from outside in engineering section. He fur ther submits that the State Government on 18-5-2002 had sent a communication that as soon as the petitioner is sent to the parent depart ment, he will be provided a posting. SRI Malhotra further submits that the case of Awadh Kumar Mishra is on different footings, as his parent department has been abolished.
We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.