Jai Shankar Tripathi Vs. Commandant, Railway Protection Force and ors.

Jai Shankar Tripathi vs Commandant, Railway Protection Force and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Oct 11, 2002

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/491637

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/491637
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Decided On: Oct 11, 2002
Case Number: Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39034 of 1994
Subject: Service
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

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

- LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 [C.A. No. 1/1894]. Section 4; [Sushil Harkauli, S.K. Singh & Krishna Murari, JJ] Acquisition of land Held, Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Authorities to acquire a particular land. Land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive No...

Key legal issue: Service
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Article 226; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 302

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jai Shankar Tripathi

Advocate S.C. Dwivedi, Adv.

Respondent

Commandant, Railway Protection Force and ors.

Advocate A.C. Misra and ;T. Upadhyay, Advs.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Article 226; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 302
Cases Referred: In Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Chand Behari Kapoor
Reported In: (2003)1UPLBEC114

Excerpt

.....the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. .....24.8.1992 and not in the month of february, 1992 as alleged by the petitioner. it is stated that after the medical examination of the petitioner, a police enquiry was conducted to verify the antecedents of the petitioner. in the police enquiry, it was disclosed that criminal case no. 68 of 1993, under section 302 ipc was pending against him and as such he was not sent for training because a criminal case under section 302 ipc was pending against him and thus he was not eligible to be sent for training. it is also denied that the prescribed uniform and other articles were issued to the petitioner.5. the petitioner, however, contends that he had been acquitted in the aforesaid criminal case.6. in rani laxmibai kshetriya gramin bank v. chand behari kapoor, (1998) 7 scc 469, it has been held that merely because a person has been selected, he has no right to appointment. in the instant case, the petitioner was not even issued any appointment letter and in the circumstance of this case cannot have any indefeasible right to appointment.7. the same ratio has been laid down by the apex court in shankarsan dash v. uoi, air 1991 sc 1612, wherein it has been held that writ petitioner's name was only included in the select list and no appointment letter had been issued to him and, therefore, he did not get any indefeasible right to be appointed.8. no writ can be issued directing the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner or for giving him training particularly when he was not eligible for appointment at the relevant time as a criminal case under section 302 ipc was pending against him. it would also not be justifiable to issue any direction for appointment of the petitioner after about ten years as prayed by him.9. for the reasons, stated above, the petition is dismissed. no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

Rakesh Tiwari, J.

1. Heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to issue him an appointment letter and has further prayed that the respondents be directed to send him for training on the said post of Constable in Railway Protection Force, New Delhi.

3. The brief facts, as alleged in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was selected in pursuance of the vacancies published in February, 1992 for recruitment of Constables in Railway Protection Force. It is further averred in the writ petition that after having been found fit in the medical examination, he was issued luggage and uniform box but as no training centre was vacant at the relevant time, he was not called for training.

4. In the counter-affidavit, it has been submitted that the applications for the post of Constable/RPF were invited vide, Employment Notice No. 1 of 1992, dated 24.8.1992 and not in the month of February, 1992 as alleged by the petitioner. It is stated that after the medical examination of the petitioner, a Police enquiry was conducted to verify the antecedents of the petitioner. In the Police Enquiry, it was disclosed that Criminal Case No. 68 of 1993, under Section 302 IPC was pending against him and as such he was not sent for training because a criminal case under Section 302 IPC was pending against him and thus he was not eligible to be sent for training. It is also denied that the prescribed uniform and other articles were issued to the petitioner.

5. The petitioner, however, contends that he had been acquitted in the aforesaid criminal case.

6. In Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Chand Behari Kapoor, (1998) 7 SCC 469, it has been held that merely because a person has been selected, he has no right to appointment. In the instant case, the petitioner was not even issued any appointment letter and in the circumstance of this case cannot have any indefeasible right to appointment.

7. The same ratio has been laid down by the Apex Court in Shankarsan Dash v. UOI, AIR 1991 SC 1612, wherein it has been held that writ petitioner's name was only included in the select list and no appointment letter had been issued to him and, therefore, he did not get any indefeasible right to be appointed.

8. No writ can be issued directing the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner or for giving him training particularly when he was not eligible for appointment at the relevant time as a criminal case under Section 302 IPC was pending against him. It would also not be justifiable to issue any direction for appointment of the petitioner after about ten years as prayed by him.

9. For the reasons, stated above, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2002 Same Parties Jai Shankar Tripathi vs Commandant, Railway Protection Force ... Same Subject Service Same Judge Rakesh Tiwari, J. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Article 226; Indian Penal Code (IPC) ...

Service