Kalu Ram Vs. State of U.P. and Another

Kalu Ram vs State of U.P. and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Nov 18, 1999

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/457988

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/457988
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: M. Katju and ;D.R. Chaudhary, JJ.
Decided On: Nov 18, 1999
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 17456 of 1999
Subject: Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service - recognition of diploma - Article 14 of Constitution of India - petitioner dismissed after 35 years from service for not possessing recognised diploma - recognition of diploma should have been done within reasonable time after appointment - Court held that it is not allowable to terminate some one after su...

Key legal issue: Service
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Articles 14

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kalu Ram

Advocate H.N. Tripathi, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P. and Another

Advocate S.C.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Articles 14
Reported In: 2000(1)AWC509; (2000)1UPLBEC85

Excerpt

service - recognition of diploma - article 14 of constitution of india - petitioner dismissed after 35 years from service for not possessing recognised diploma - recognition of diploma should have been done within reasonable time after appointment - court held that it is not allowable to terminate some one after such long period. - .....the year 1963 was not a recognised certificate, and hence the petitioner's initial appointment in the year 1963 is invalid. the petitioner has been working since the year 1963 onwards until the date of the termination order and thereafter he was working in pursuance of the order, of this court dated 26.4.99, but he has not been paid his salary after the date of termination.4. in our opinion, the validity of the petitioner's diploma should have been considered at the time of appointing him in the year 1963 or within a reasonable period thereafter, but this matter cannot be examined after a gap of 35 or 36 years, as that would be wholly arbitrary. as held by the supreme court in maneka gandhi v. union of india, air 1978 sc 597 arbitrariness violates article 14 of the constitution of india. the view we are taking also finds support from the decision of the supreme court in smt. bhagwati devi and others v. delhi state mineral development corporation, air 1990 sc 371, vide paragraph 6.5. on the facts and circumstances of the case, we allowthe petition and quash the impugned order dated 7.4.99. the petitioner shall be paid his arrears of salary within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

Full Judgment

M. Katju and D. R. Chaudhary,JJ.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standingcounsel.

2. The petitioner is challenging the impugned termination order dated7.4.99 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition). The petitioner was appointed in the year 1963 as Junior Engineer in Minor Irrigation Department. Uttar Pradesh Government. At the time of termination of service, he was working as Executive Engineer. Thus, the petitioner has put in about 36 years service. Now the impugned termination order dated 7.4.99 has been passed in which it has been stated that the petitioner did not possess a Diploma from a recognised institution and hence his initial appointment in the year 1963 was Illegal. The Diploma, which the petitioner has is from Asia Engineering Institute, New Delhi and it is alleged that this body is not recognised by the Central or State Government.

3. In our opinion, it is not open to the respondents to suddenly wake up after a gap of 35 years and declare that the petitioner's certificate which he obtained before entering service in the year 1963 was not a recognised certificate, and hence the petitioner's initial appointment in the year 1963 is invalid. The petitioner has been working since the year 1963 onwards until the date of the termination order and thereafter he was working in pursuance of the order, of this Court dated 26.4.99, but he has not been paid his salary after the date of termination.

4. In our opinion, the validity of the petitioner's Diploma should have been considered at the time of appointing him in the year 1963 or within a reasonable period thereafter, but this matter cannot be examined after a gap of 35 or 36 years, as that would be wholly arbitrary. As held by the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The view we are taking also finds support from the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Bhagwati Devi and others v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, AIR 1990 SC 371, vide paragraph 6.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we allowthe petition and quash the impugned order dated 7.4.99. The petitioner shall be paid his arrears of salary within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1999 Same Parties Kalu Ram vs State of U.P. and Another Same Subject Service Same Judge M. Katju and ;D.R. Chaudhary, JJ. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Articles 14

Service