1. Home
  2. India
  3. HC quashes appointment, promotions of UPSIDC

HC quashes appointment, promotions of UPSIDC Chief Engineer (Project)

Allahabad: The Allahabad High Court yesterday ordered the immediate removal of Arun Kumar Mishra from the post of Chief Engineer (Project) in Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation, quashing his appointment to UPSIDC more than
PTI August 30, 2014 10:47 IST
PTI

Allahabad: The Allahabad High Court yesterday ordered the immediate removal of Arun Kumar Mishra from the post of Chief Engineer (Project) in Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation, quashing his appointment to UPSIDC more than a couple of decades ago as well as all subsequent promotions.

A division bench, comprising Justice Arun Tandon and Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra, while holding that Mishra “has no authority under any law to hold any post”, also directed UPSIDC to “take all consequential action forthwith in compliance to what has been held herein above”.

The court said Mishra had “no valid high school mark-sheet issued by the UP Board of High School and Intermediate nor any valid B Tech degree” and hence “his regularization as Assistant Engineer, his promotion on the post of Executive Engineer and ultimately to the post of Chief Project Engineer, which has been re-designated as Chief Engineer (Project) in UPSIDC” was contrary to rules and “therefore illegal and unfair”.

The court passed the order on a writ of quo warranto filed by Anil Kumar Verma, Class I officer working with UPSIDC since 1986.

The petitioner had alleged Mishra had secured his job by submitting forged documents.

The court noted with displeasure that the respondent “through his counsel, who were always willing to act, made five attempts, two before the Hon'ble Chief Justice and three before the Apex Court, for the matter not being heard by this Bench”.

The court also came down heavily upon senior advocate Shanti Bhushan, who was one of the counsel for Sharma, observing that he had “taken the personal responsibility of affidavit in support of recusal application” but “did not even appear before the court” when the same came up for hearing.

Terming the recusal application as an attempt to “avoid this court with an intent of forum shopping”, the court rejected the same with the remark “it is only because of the age of the senior advocate......that we are closing the matter without any further directions”.