SMT. VAJAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petitioner - appellant, aggrieved by order dated 5.1.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 70801 of 2009, has preferred this appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.

(2.) SHORT facts giving rise to the present appeal are that an Urban Community Development Scheme was launched by the State of U.P. with the financial aid of the UNICEF. Writ petitioner - appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner') was initially appointed for a fixed period of three months as a Community Organiser. All the Community Organisers appointed under the said Scheme were permitted to work till 28.2.1983 by the State Government vide order dated 16.4.1982. Despite that, it seems, the petitioner was allowed to continue in employment. Petitioner earlier filed Writ petition 53810 of 2009 (Smt. Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. and others) raising a grievance in regard to stoppage of her salary. This Court, by order dated 27.10.2009, disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the authority concerned to decide the representation of the petitioner by a speaking order within the time stipulated. In light of the aforesaid order, the representation of the petitioner claiming payment of salary and regularisation of her service was considered and by order dated 14.12.2009, the claim for payment of salary was accepted and direction for payment was issued, as noted in the order itself, but the claim for regularisation of her service was rejected.

(3.) AS this appeal has to fail on a single point, we do not consider it expedient either to incorporate or refer to those submissions and authorities relied by Mr. Singh. It is trite that existence of a valid and sanctioned post is sine qua non for regularisation of service of an employee. Nothing has been brought on record, except various correspondences, to show that any post of Community Organiser was sanctioned by the Competent Authority. Once it is held so, the prayer made by the petitioner is not fit to be granted and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition.