Ashok Kumar and ors. Vs. U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. and ors.

Ashok Kumar and ors. vs U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Sep 03, 2007

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/495077

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/495077
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: S.S. Chauhan, J.
Decided On: Sep 03, 2007
Subject: Service

Case Summary

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

- INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 [C.A. No. 45/1860]. Section 302; [M.C. Jain, R.C. Deepak & K.K. Misra, JJ] Murder Plea as to accused being minor School register and transfer certificate not proved before Court according to law Held, It has to be ignored and question of age is to be determined on other evidence and cir...

Key legal issue: Service

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ashok Kumar and ors.

Respondent

U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Yamuna Shanker Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
Reported In: [2008(116)FLR107]

Excerpt

- indian penal code, 1860 [c.a. no. 45/1860]. section 302; [m.c. jain, r.c. deepak & k.k. misra, jj] murder plea as to accused being minor school register and transfer certificate not proved before court according to law held, it has to be ignored and question of age is to be determined on other evidence and circumstances surfacing on record. age determined on the basis of x-ray plates and report prepared by c.m.o., is the correct age of accused. accused was declared to be child on the date of commission of offence of murder. however, considering fact that now accused was around 41 years, he cannot be sent to approved school. accused was directed to pay fine of rs.25,000/- under section 302 i.p.c., amount of fine was directed to be paid as compensation to wife of deceased. mohammad.....due weightage and it was also directed that they were not treated to be overage for the purposes of consideration. in para 12 of the said report the apex court held that the conclusion of the high court in the matter of regularization has been suffering from no infirmity.5. the petitioners are also claiming the same and identical relief for their consideration. the recommendation has already been made in favour of the petitioners by the departmental authorities. the petitioners in this regard have moved various representations, contained in annexure nos. 4 to 6 and prayed that they may be adjusted and regularized against those vacancies.6. in response to the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the corporation submits that there are no rules for regularization and neither the petitioners can be regularized against the special drive meant for filling up of backlog vacancies.7. considering over all facts and circumstances of the case, the opposite parties are directed to consider the case of the petitioners in response to the advertisement and give due weightage to their past services and age bar will not come in the way of petitioners' consideration.8. with the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally.

Full Judgment

S.S. Chauhan, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the U.P. State Warehousing Corporation.

2. The petitioners by means of the present writ petition are claiming regularization on different posts as they allege that they are working continuously since 2000 and the opposite parties are bound to consider their claim for regularization.

3. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that some of the petitioners belong to the reserved category i.e. S.C. and O.B.C., but an advertisement has been made with respect to filling up of backlog vacancies of reserved category and the claim of the petitioners is not being considered. The petitioners claim that they may be considered ignoring the age bar and due weightage should be given in regard to their past services.

4. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the case of Yamuna Shanker Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2007 (52) AIC 231 (SC) : 2007 (2) SCC 611, specifically drawing attention of the Court to para 8 of the report whereby the judgment of the High Court has been approved by the Apex Court. It was directed by the Division Bench in the said case that while subjecting the! person concerned for selection process, past services rendered by them will be given due weightage and it was also directed that they were not treated to be overage for the purposes of consideration. In para 12 of the said report the Apex Court held that the conclusion of the High Court in the matter of regularization has been suffering from no infirmity.

5. The petitioners are also claiming the same and identical relief for their consideration. The recommendation has already been made in favour of the petitioners by the departmental authorities. The petitioners in this regard have moved various representations, contained in Annexure Nos. 4 to 6 and prayed that they may be adjusted and regularized against those vacancies.

6. In response to the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Counsel for the Corporation submits that there are no rules for regularization and neither the petitioners can be regularized against the special drive meant for filling up of backlog vacancies.

7. Considering over all facts and circumstances of the case, the opposite parties are directed to consider the case of the petitioners in response to the advertisement and give due weightage to their past services and age bar will not come in the way of petitioners' consideration.

8. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2007 Same Parties Ashok Kumar and ors. vs U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Lt... Same Subject Service Same Judge S.S. Chauhan, J.

Service