Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136031 Reserved on : 05.08.2025 Delivered on : 12.08.2025 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 56990 of 2010 Petitioner :- Mukesh Chandra Sharma Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Bhushan,Anil Bhushan Counsel for Respondent :- B.D.Mandhyan,Satish Mandhyan Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Abhishek Bhushan, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Tejaswi Mishra and Sri S.P. Rai, learned counsel for respondents. 2. In the present case, following facts are not under in dispute :- (a) Petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis as Mandi Yard Man on 16.06.1986. (b) Petitioner was regularized on post of Mandi Yard Man by an order dated 16.08.1991 and an order was issued under Proforma 62 on 21.08.1991. 3. It is further case of petitioner that in meeting of Mandi Samiti, a decision was also taken on 23.01.1991 that since petitioner has a qualification of M.A. and he is eligible for appointment on the post of Mandi Assistant and since this post was vacant, therefore, on consent, he may be appointed as Mandi Assistant. 4. Later on by an order dated 30.09.2000, he was permanently appointed on the said post. Petitioner is 1 of 3 aggrieved that subsequently, by an order dated 31.08.2010, his appointment on post of Mandi Assistant was cancelled and he was reverted back to Mandi Yard Man. A reason was assigned that there was no provision in terms of Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (kendriyat) Seva (Pratham Sanshodhan) Viniyamawali, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as, “Regulation 1989) for appointment from the post of Mandi Yard Man to Mandi Assistant. The relevant part thereof is reproduced hereinafter :- “मण्डी निदेशक राज्य कृ नि उत्पाद मण्डी परिरद उ०प्र० लखऊ के आदेश पत्रांक- अधि ०'ग' / (लालसिं#ह यादव म०नि० पद परिर०)/2010-3682 निदांक 23.8.2010 के अुपाल में निदांक 10.4.1989 #े उत्तर प्रदेश कृ नि उत्पाद मण्डी #निमधि) (के न्द्रीय)) #ेवा (प्रथम #ंशो ) निवनियमावली 1989 में पद परिरव). / #मायोज का कोई प्रानिव ा हीं है श्री मुके शचन्द शमा. को व. 1996 में मण्डी अभि6रक्षक #े मण्डी #हायक के पद पर निकया गया पद परिरव). निवनियमावली के प्रानिव ाो के निवपरी) है। फलस्वरूप श्री शमा. का पद परिरव). )त्कालिलक प्र6ाव #े निरस्) निकया जा)ा है। श्री मुके श चन्द शमा. #निमधि) आदेश पत्रांक-कृ ० उ०म०#०/91-112 निद० 21.8.1991 के अु#ार मण्डी अभि6रक्षक पद पर पूव.व) बे रहेंगे।” 5. Learned counsel for petitioner has not able to dispute that there was no provision for appointment of Mandi Yard Man to Mandi Assistant, however, he further submits that petitioner has not committed any error, it was the decision of Committee that since he was eligible for Mandi Assistant, therefore, he was appointed on post of Mandi Assistant and later on he was regularized also as such there was no reason to set aside the aforesaid order after more than 14 years. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that an order of recovery is also legally unsutainable. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent has supported the impugned order that petitioner was appointed 2 of 3 on post of Mandi Assistant de hors of Rules and error was corrected. 8. I have considered above submission and perused the record. Learned counsel for petitioner has not able to show any provision for appointment from the post of Mandi Yard Man to Mandi Assistant under Regulation 1989, therefore, appointment on said post was de hors of Rules. 9. The Court also takes note that this writ petition is pending since 2010 and no interim order was granted and one person is appointed on the post of Mandi Assistant, who is not party resepondent in this writ petition i.e. his appointment is not under challenge. 10. In aforesaid circumstances, the Court takes note the other argument i.e. the question of recovery. The respondents have not able to show that petitioner had committed any misrepresentation since the resolution of committee as well as order of appointment and subsequent order of regularization on post of Mandi Assistant are genuine and are not disputed by the respondent, therefore, in absence of any element of misrepresentation of fraud, direction to recover the extra paid salary is unsustainable, therefore, the writ petition is allowed in part and impugned order dated 31.10.2010 is interfered in part that direction for recovery is set aside, however, no interference is caused in other part of order i.e. to revert the petitioner on his initial post of Mandi Yard Man. Order Date :- 12.08.2025 P. Pandey 3 of 3 Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad