STATE OF U.P. versus GIRIJA SHANKAR SONAKIYA

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 16 · Decided: 19-08-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
. STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
GIRIJA SHANKAR SONAKIY A 
AUGUST 19, 1998 
B 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND K.T. THOMAS, J.1.] 
Se1vice Law : 
Uttar Pradesh Regulwisation of Ad Hoc Appointments ( 011 Posts 
C within tlze purview of the Public Service Co111111issio11) Rules, 1979 - Rules 4, 
S-Te11ni11atio11 of ad hoc se1vice-....Po.1·t of Assistant E11gi11eer--Appoi11tme11t 
of respondent in ad hoc capacity-Adverse entry-Intel]JO/ation made in 
Sc/zoo/ Ce1tificate to gain benefit of additional Years i11 service Selection 
Committee ,held justified i11 not regulwising re~po11de11t's se1vices. 
D 
The respondent was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Uttar 
Pradesh Public Works Department in an ad lzoc capacity. During his 
tenure, the respondent was given an adverse entry for the year 1976-77 and 
hi·s integrity for that year was also withheld. It was found that by an 
interpolation, respondent had made an alteration in the original High 
E School Certificate so as to gain the benefit of two additional years, in 
service. TI1e U.P. Public Service Commission debarred him from appearing 
in any of its competitive examination or selection for a period of five years. 
Subse11uently, when the Government took up the job of regularising the 
services of ad /we employees, the Selection Committee constituted under 
F the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments (on Posts 
within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, con· 
sidered the case of the respondent, but did not find him suitable and 
consequently his services were terminated as on the date on which he was 
considered for regularisation by the Selection Committee, there existed an 
G adverse entry in his character roll, withholding of intebrrity for the year, 
and he was also found to have made interpolation in the original High 
School Certificate so as to reduce his age by two years. In a Writ Petition 
filed by the respondent, the High Court interfered with the order of 
termination on the ground that during the pendency of the Writ Petition, 
the adverse rntry of the year 1976-77 was expunged by the Engineer-in-
H Chief, U.P .. His integrity was also certified and that these two factors could 
16 
1
--, 
• - l' 
STATE v. G.S. SONAKIYA [S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.] 
17 
not, therefore, legally constitute the basis for terminating the services of A 
the respondent. The appellants were directed to reconsider the case of the 
respondent for regularisation under the Rules. This appeal had been filed 
against the judgment of the High Court . 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
Held : There is a vital omission on the part of the High Court. While 
it considered the two factors of adverse entry and of respondent's integrity 
and held that the adverse entry having been expunged and the integrity 
having been certified by the Engineer-in-Chief, U.P. P.W.D., the case of the 
respondent deserved to be reconsidered, it did not consider the relevance 
or significance of the third factor, namely, that on account of interpolation 
in the origin~! High School Certificate, the respondent had already been 
debarred by ~he Commission from appearing in any of its competitive 
examination or selection for a period of five years. Interpolation in the 
original High School Certificate so as to gain the benefit of two additional 
B 
c 
' ---'-
years in service was a serious matter which could hardly be ignored. Since D 
this factor was also taken into consideration by the Selection Committee 
constituted under the U.P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (on 
Posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, 
( 
_J 
" 
··1 
•• 
the High Court could not legally issue any direction for reconsideration of 
respondent's case unless it ex;:!uded by a positive finding, the third factor E 
also from consideration. [21-C-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1484 of 
1993. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.1.92 of the Allahabad High 
F 
Court in W.P. No. 1174 of 1980. 
T.N. Singh for R.B. Misra for the Appellant. 
R.C. Srivastava, Ms. Rani Chhabra, Ms. Rachna Srivastava and Richa 
Goyal for the Respondent. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. The respondent was appointed as Assistant 
Engineer in the Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department purely in an ad 
hoc capacity on 11th September, 1972. The post of Assistant Engineer was H 
18 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A within the purview of the U.P. Public Se

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.