State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs Neeraj Shukla and Others

Appellantsrespondents, aggrieved by the orders dated 23.9.2008 and 30.9.2008 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.6022 (S/S) of 2008, have preferred this appeal under Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules.

The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the petitionersrespondents were candidates for recruitment to the post of 1387 Safai Karmi. Being satisfied that the selection process was not in accordance with law, the State Government decided to hold an inquiry in respect of the selection by an order dated 15.9.2008 and the said inquiry was entrusted to the Divisional Commissioner.

The writ petitionersrespondents approached this Court and prayed for quashing of the order dated 15.9.2008, whereby the inquiry was entrusted to the Divisional Commissioner.

The learned Single Judge by an interim order dated 23.9.2008 stayed the operation of the order dated 15.9.2008 and also directed to issue appointment letters to the persons whose names find place in the select list with a further direction to allow them to assume the charge.

Relevant portion of the interim order dated 23.9.2008 of the learned Single Judge reads as follows:

�The operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 15th September, 2008 shall remain stayed. In case appointment letters have not been issued to the petitioners, whose names find place in the select list, same shall be issued and the petitioners shall be allowed to assume charge and discharge their duties. However, it is provided that their appointment and continuance in service shall be subject to the further orders of this Court.�

In the meanwhile, the Divisional Commissioner submitted its report dated 19.9.2008 and the State Government by order dated 22.9.2008 quashed the entire selection.

Although the report and order were submitted and given prior to the filing of the writ petition, these facts were not stated. Later on, the writ petitionersrespondents filed application for amendment seeking quashing of the Government Order dated 22.9.2008.

The learned Single Judge again by an interim order dated 30.9.2008 stayed the operation of the aforesaid order.

Both the orders dated 23.9.2008 and 30.9.2008 are assailed in this appeal.

Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that when it came to the notice of the Government that illegality had taken place in the selection, nothing prevents it to hold an inquiry and till then, not to issue letters of appointment to the selected candidates. She submits that in any view of the matter, by way of an interim order, the learned Single Judge ought not to have given the direction for appointment of the writ petitionersrespondents as it amounts to giving the final relief.

Ordinarily, this Court does not interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge granting interim relief, but as a proposition of law, it cannot be said that in no circumstances, this Court in special appeal cannot interfere with the interim order/direction.

Any final expression of opinion by us shall prejudice either party and hence, no detail discussion is needed. However, we are of the considered opinion that in the facts of the present case, the learned Single Judge ought not to have passed the impugned order for appointment and keeping the Government Order dated 22.9.2008 in abeyance by way of interim relief. The interim order, in our opinion, in sum and substance is nothing but allowing the writ petition itself, which in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be allowed to stand.

13.Any observations made by us in this appeal shall have no bearing on the merit of the case.

14.In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned orders of the learned Single Judge dated 23.9.2008 as also dated 30.9.2008 are set aside. No cost.

(Appeal allowed)