NET SINGHRAMESH KUMAR SINGH SANJAYA KUMAR VERMA Vs. LABOUR SECRETARY U P SHASAN STATE OF U P RAJYA KRISHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No decision is approved for reporting (AFR) unless it decides an important question of law. However, this decision does not decide any question of law, much less an important question of law, it is merely an interim order. Then, why have I marked it AFR? Let me clarify, I have marked it AFR to emphasise :

(2.) Edison.-Yet to find suitable filament for incandescent bulb-was asked by his friends if he hadn't failed in his many attempts. 'No; he answered. 'I have found out what will not make good filament'. Well, the controversy involved in these cases and the course charted by it in this Court tells us about Court management and good administration-how these two may not be practised. THE FACTS

(3.) The petitioners in these writ petitions were adhoc, or muster roll, or temporary, or work charge, or daily wage employees, of the Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Lucknow (the Parishad) or the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti of different areas (the Samitees). There is some difference in these five kinds of appointments. But nothing turns upon their distinction in these cases. For convenience, 1 will be using one word namely 'ad-hoc' for all of them. The petitioners were appointed after 1.4.1996 without following the rules and regulations. These appointments were irregular. There were other employees similarly situate that is other ad-hoc employees whose appointments were also irregular. The State Government divided them into three groups 'Ka", 'Kha', and "Ga" by a GO dated 12.2.1999 (the GO) and directed termination of services of all irregular appointments made between 1.4.1996 to 30.10.1997. This was to be done according to the procedure prescribed in that GO. Subsequently, the Parishad also resolved to follow it by its decision dated 3.3.1999.