Md.Jawed Anwar v. The Union Of India
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Writ Application is dismissed with observation as above
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr. Girija Shankar Pd Gp1 .... .... Respondent/s Patna High Court CWJC No.22270 of 2011 (2) dt.25-04-2012 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER ***************
Operative part
25.04.2012 It is none of the business of the High Court, while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to evaluate or make assessment about the utility and utilization of the service of the petitioners in the manner in which they have been appointed by the respondents. Whether their performance under the respondents has been worth anything, is for the authority to consider and decide. Merely because respondents have decide to continue engagement of some persons and extended their contract, it does not mean the others will also get a right of equality as a matter or course. It is best left to the wisdom of the Assessing Authority, based on the performance appraisal report of all the petitioners, who are before this Court and if their cases still requires consideration. Writ Application is dismissed with observation as above. No direction is required to be passed in favour of the petitioners in above-stated circumstances, especially when such appointment was on fixed period in terms of the contract executed by them. SKM/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ Application is dismissed with observation as above
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.