LAWS(UTN)-2012-7-50

GOPAL SINGH GUSAIN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Decided On July 31, 2012
Gopal Singh Gusain Appellant
V/S
State of Uttarakhand and others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Pankaj Purohit, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lalit Miglani, the learned brief holder for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Peon on 31.01.1985 in Government District Library, Chamoli at Gopeshwar. The petitioner contends that he is a graduate and also possesses a Diploma in Library Science and is qualified to be appointed as a Library Clerk. Notwithstanding the aforesaid qualification, one Ramakant Bainjwal was appointed as a Librarian on ad hoc basis and, accordingly, the post on which Ramakant Bainjwal was working as a Library Clerk fell vacant. Accordingly, the District Education Officer, Chamoli issued an order dated 31st July, 2006 appointing the petitioner as a Library Clerk in the pay -scale of Rs. 950 -1500. Pursuant to this order, the petitioner started working as a Library Clerk and is working continuously since then without any break in service and is receiving the salary of a Library Clerk with necessary increments and other benefits available on that post. The petitioner made a representation for regularization of his services on the post of Library Clerk. This court, by an order of 22nd April, 2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 752 of 2002 (S/B) titled as "Gopal Singh Gusain Vs. State of Uttaranchal", directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization under the Rules of 2002. Based on the said direction, the impugned order was passed by the respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization on the post of Library Clerk on the ground that the petitioner was appointed as a Library Clerk as a stopgap -arrangement and was not given an ad hoc appointment and, therefore, the petitioner is not eligible under for regularization under the Uttaranchal Regularization of Ad -hoc Appointments (On posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2002). The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) RULE 4 of the Rules of 2002 provides the procedure for regularization. For facility, the said provision is extracted hereunder: -