Kumaun University, Nainital And Others vs Nandan Singh Dev And Another

Vipin Sanghi, CJ

Delay Condonation Application No. 02 of 2023

1) Issue notice.

2) Learned counsels appear and accept notice on behalf of the respondents.

3) By this application, the appellants seek condonation of 46 day’s delay in filing the special appeal.

4) Since the delay is not much, the same is not fairly opposed by the respondents. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the delay condonation application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the special appeal is condoned.

Special Appeal No. 323 of 2023

5) The challenge in the present appeal is to the interim order dated 17.03.2023, which has been corrected on 13.06.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 351 of 2023. By the impugned order dated 17.03.2023, it has been directed that the writ petitioner / respondent No. 1 shall be permitted to work, if any other employee is being permitted to work, engaged through U.P.N.L.

6) The case of the respondent No. 1 / writ petitioner was that he was employed as a contractual worker on 22.12.2001. His contractual employment continued. During the said contractual employment, the petitioner was involved in a criminal case under Section 420, 468, 471, 120B IPC, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 1482 of 2013, titled “State Vs Nandan Singh Dev”. Respondent No. 1 was convicted by the trial court for the offences under Section 420 and 120B IPC on 22.07.2019. However, his criminal appeal No. 93 of 2019, was allowed by the learned Additional District and Civil Judge, Nainital. After his acquittal, respondent No. 1 approached the appellants to be restored in his contractual employment. Since no action was taken on the said request, he preferred Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1044 of 2022 before this Court. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the appellants to examine the claim of the respondent / writ petitioner, and pass an appropriate order within six weeks, vide order dated 14.06.2022.

7) The respondents (appellants herein) then passed the order dated 02.11.2022, which reads as follows:

8) The aforesaid order would show that the reason for the non-employment of respondent No. 1 on contractual basis disclosed by the appellants was that there was a Government Order dated 27.04.2018, which imposed the ban on contractual employments, and it further directed that the officer who resorts to contractual employment shall have to bear the salary and pension of such an appointee.

9) Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No. 1 / writ petitioner preferred the writ petition, wherein the impugned order has been passed.

10) We find that the learned Single Judge has not considered the reason disclosed by the appellants for the rejection of the representation of respondent No. 1. The impugned orders are completely unreasoned and, therefore, cannot sustain. They, in effect, grant the final relief at the interim stage, which should normally not be done. We, accordingly, set aside the same. The special appeal is, hereby, dismissed.

11) We have also heard learned counsels on the merits of the writ petition, and it is clear to us that the rejection of the representation of respondent No. 1 / writ petitioner was completely justified. When the respondent’s contractual employment was terminated, there was a good reason for the same. It cannot be said that the same was arbitrary, whimsical, or mala fide. We have serious doubt that, mere exoneration of respondent No. 1 of the criminal charge levelled against him, would vest with him a right to again seek contractual employment. Even if that be so, the appellants herein had given good reason for non-employment of respondent No. 1 on contractual basis. Therefore, the order impugned in the writ petition, in any event, did not call for interference.

12) We, accordingly, dismiss the writ petition, as well. The writ petition need not be listed before the Court on the date fixed.