ISHTIYAK AHMAD MAKRANI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

(2.) THE brief facts emerging out from the pleadings made in the writ petition are that an advertisement was issued by the State Government (Respondent No.1) for filling up the post of the Assistant Town Planners by direct recruitment on ad hoc basis in the "UP Development Authorities Centralized Services" (in short, "the Centralized Services"). THE petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose on 04.07.1987 and was selected alongwith eight other Assistant Town Planners (ATPs). Pursuant thereto, an Office Memorandum of the selected candidates was issued by the State Government on 27.07.1-987 with a list of nine persons appointed as the ATPs (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). THE name of the petitioner found place at serial No. 1 of the list, while the names of the rest of 8 appointees were below the petitioner at serial No. 2 to 9. THE order of names of 9 appointees was as given below; Name of the persons ad hoc appointed as the Assistant Town Planners (ATP) in the Centralized Services vide State Government's office memorandum dated 27.07.1987 in the order given below: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_459_ADJ10_2010Image1.jpg</IMG>

(3.) PURSUANT to the aforesaid judgment of this Court dated 25.8.2001, a Selection Committee was constituted by the U.P. Government for the regularization of the ad hoc appointed ATPs and its three meetings were held, followed thereafter by issue of three separate regularization orders in regard to 10 ad hoc appointees including one Shri Rajendra Kumar, who was appointed on 14.4.1988, as per details given below: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_459_ADJ10_2010Image2.jpg</IMG>