HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 44895 of 2000 Court No. - 34 Sl. No. 23 HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Shri G.K. Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Anand Tiwari for the petitioner and Shri Rajeev Gupta, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State. 2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 28.9.2000 whereby the services of the petitioner on the post of Seenchpal were terminated with immediate effect with one month's salary in lieu thereof on the ground that no selection procedure was followed nor any select list was prepared at the time of the appointment of the petitioner and the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice is not satisfactory. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner herein was sent for training/apprenticeship vide order dated 5.9.1994 passed by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Pratapgarh. Thereafter the petitioner has successfully completed apprenticeship with one Chhedi Lal Yadav, Harkha VI Sub Division Kunda, Pratapgarh from 15.9.1994 to 14.12.1994. Thereupon the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 26.9.1995 as Seenchpal on temporary basis for six months as stop gap arrangement as no other candidate from the waiting list was available and the petitioner has already completed the apprenticeship. Thereafter a select list prepared on 8.1.1996 by the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anand Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : S.C. Azimul Islam .....Petitioner(s) Executive Engineer Sharda Sahayak Khand-39 Govindpur Alld. .....Respondent(s) Department, Pratapgarh whereby 10 persons including the petitioner were selected for appointment as Seenchpal in terms of Rule 13 of the Irrigation Department Patraul Service Rules, 1953. First five persons were assigned the Raibareilly Division and the other candidates i.e. from Sl. no.6 to 10 were assigned to Irrigation Division Pratapgarh. The names of such persons, as mentioned in Annexure C.A. 1 of the counter affidavit, read as under: "1. श्री चन्द्रभुवन पुष्पाकर 2. श्री मधुकर िमश्रा 3. श्री संजय कु मार िमश्रा रायबरेली (द०) 4. श्री जयशंकर दूबे शा०न० रायबरेली 5. श्री मुजीबुल इस्लाम .................................... 6. श्री िसद्धनाथ ितवारी 7. श्री लाल जी 8. श्री नीरज कु मार िसह िसचाई खण्ड, प्रतापगढ़। 9. श्री शािलक राम ितवारी 10. श्री िसद्धनाथ पाण्डेय" 4. Thereafter vide order dated 24.1.1996 the petitioner was appointed temporarily on the post of Seenchpal on regular pay scale against the regular post in terms of Rules, 1953. Subsequent thereto a writ petition was filed by one Chandrabhuwan Pushpakar being Writ Petition No. 5412 of 1999 (S/S) (Chandrabhuwan Pushpakar Vs. State of U.P. and others) alleging therein that the persons junior in the select list have been given appointment to the post of Seenchpal but he has not been given the appointment. In the said writ petition notice was issued to the respondents and the respondents were required to file the counter affidavit. In response thereto, the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department vide his letter dated 4.5.2000 has directed the Executive Engineer, Raibareilly to terminate the services of the two junior candidates appointed from the said select list on the post of Seenchpal after completing all the necessary formalities so that the counter affidavit can be filed. Again vide letter dated 13.2.2000 the Chief Engineer has WRIA No. 44895 of 2000 2 directed the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Department, Allahabad to ensure the termination of the services of the petitioner as well as one other person Jai Shanker Dubey who were working in the office of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Jaunpur. Thereafter the Executive Engineer, Allahabad vide letter dated 27.6.2000 has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner herein alleging that the petitioner has obtained the selection and appointment in collusion with the officers of the Department without following the due procedure and why the service of the petitioner may not be terminated. Thereupon the petitioner herein submitted a detailed reply on 10.7.2000 to the Executive Engineer, Allahabad detailing each and every fact with regard to his appointment and stated that after following the due procedure he has been appointed. Thereupon in terms of the mandate issued by the Chief Engineer, vide impugned order dated 28.9.2000 the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that his appointment was made without following the proper procedure as no selection committee was ever constituted. Being aggrieved, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner. 5. Vide interim order dated 2.11.2000 this Court has directed that the services of the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order dated 28.9.2000 shall not be dispensed with. In view of the said interim order passed in the instant petition the petitioner has continued in service and has completed more than 30 years of service and is still continuing in service. 6. Shri G.K. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the services of the petitioner are governed by the Irrigation Department Patraul Service Rules, 1953 and the Rule 13 thereof provides the apprenticeship/training which is a three months unpaid training under already working Patraul/Seenchpal and thereafter under Rule 3-B of the Rules, 1953. the Superintending Engineer is required to constitute a Selection Committee of two Executive Engineers and the Senior Executive Engineer would be convenor of the said Committee and thereafter from the persons who have completed the apprenticeship/training successfully a select list is required to be prepared by the convenor of the said Committee and the said convenor is required to give the names of the selected candidates to the Superintending WRIA No. 44895 of 2000 3 Engineer. Thereupon a select list is required to be notified by the Superintending Engineer, which has been duly notified on 8.1.1996 in the instant case. Pursuant thereto on 24.1.1996 the petitioner was appointed out of the said select list. Since the Chandrabhuwan Pushpakar who was at serial no. 1 in the select list dated 8.1.1996 was not given appointment he has filed the writ petition and has claimed that since his juniors have been appointed from the same select list, therefore, he should also be appointed on the post of Seenchpal. The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 12.3.2012 and the judgement was affirmed by the Apex Court and consequently the said Chandrabhuwan Pushpakar was also given appointment. Therefore, learned senior counsel submits that since the appointment of the petitioner was done after the due select list was prepared on 8.1.1996 and notified after following the due procedure as provide in the Rules, 1953, therefore, this Court has not disturbed the appointment of the petitioner. However, the appointment of the petitioner has been terminated only on the direction of the Chief Engineer by a cryptic order without assigning any reason or giving through the details of the appointment, which were given by the petitioner in his representation submitted to the show cause notice issued to him. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and since the petitioner has already worked for more than 30 years and he is still working pursuant to the interim order the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 7. Per contra, Shri Rajeev Gupta, learned Addl. C.S.C. reiterates and supports that no due selection process while appointing the petitoiner was followed and since the said Chandrabhuwan Pushpakar was senior to the petitioner in the select list and ignoring him the appointment to the petitioner was granted, therefore, the same was cancelled by the impugned order dated 28.9.20000. Learned Addl. C.S.C. is not in a position to dispute the document Annexure C.A.-1 and the select list dated 8.1.1996 is admitted by the Executive Engineer Pratapgarh and it was also admitted that from the said select list various candidates were not appointed and had approached the High Court by filing the separate writ petitions and all the three petitions filed by such persons were ultimately allowed and they were given the appointment on the basis of WRIA No. 44895 of 2000 4 the select list dated 8.1.1996 published by the Superintending Engineer and it is also admitted to the Addl. C.S.C. that pursuant to the order dated 5.9.1994 the petitioner as well as the said Chandrabhuwan Pushpakar were sent for training simultaneously and both of them have completed the training and thereafter though the petitioner has been given the appointment directly the said Chandrabhuwan Pushpakar was given the appointment after the direction issued by this Court in the writ petition filed by him and the contention of the respondents that no select list was prepared or the selection process was not followed was categorically rejected by this Court in its order dated 12.3.2012, passed in the writ filed by the said Chandrabhuwan Pushpakar. 8. Thus from the facts of the instant case, it is apparent that the select list is required to be prepared only after the three month's unpaid training is undergone by the candidates and it is undisputed case of the petitioner that the petitioner has completed the three month's training as required pursuant to the direction of the Executive Engineer and thereupon a select list was prepared on 8.1.1996, in which the name of the petitioner finds place at sl. no. 5. Pursuant thereto the petitioner was given appointment to the post of Seenchpal though on the temporary basis initially as the confirmation on the said post was subject to successful completion of probation period. It is undisputed that the petitioner has worked since his appointment on 24.1.1996 till the date of his termination i.e. 28.9.2000 and thereafter he is continuing pursuant to the interim order dated 2.11.2000 and nothing adverse against them has been brought on record. 9. Thus it is apparently clear that the petitioner was given appointment vide order dated 28.1.1996 following the due procedure. However, only on the ground that the authority had committed some mistake by not giving appointment to the said Chandrabhuwan Pushpakar who was placed at serial number one and the petitioner who was placed at serial no. 5 of the select list, the said Chandrabhuwan Pushpakar has filed a writ petition before this Court which was allowed rejecting the contention of the respondents with regard to non following of the due procedure. In such circumstances this Court do not find any illegality in the appointment of the petitioner vide order dated 28.1.1996 though there may be some irregularity that ignoring the candidate place at serial no. 1, WRIA No. 44895 of 2000 5 the petitioner had been given the appointment from the same select list but that itself would not be sufficient to cancel the appointment of the petitioner. Further pursuant to the interim order, the petitioner has complete more than 30 years of service and is still continuing in service. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 28.9.2000 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. September 8, 2026 o.k. WRIA No. 44895 of 2000 6 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- OM KRISHNA CHOUDHARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad