VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing of the judgment and order dated 20 -7 -2000 of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Claim Petition No. 83/II of 1991.

(2.) THE petitioner Vinod Kumar and Respondents No. 7 to 10 were appointed as Assistant Planners on ad -hoc basis in the Town and Country Planning Department of the State Government on 10 -2 -1984. Thereafter, Respondents No. 2, 3, 14 to 17 were also appointed on the same post on ad -hoc basis on 20 -5 -1986. The U.P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) issued an advertisement on 7 -3 -1987 for making selection on 22 posts of Assistant Planners/Assistant Town Planners. The Commission after holding interview declared a list of the selected candidates on 31 -7 -1989. Respondents No. 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13 to 16 who were already working on ad -hoc basis were included in the said list. The list of the selected candidates was forwarded by the Commission to the State Government which was received by it on 18 -10 -1989. The Governor of U.P. made U.P. Regularisation of Ad -hoc Appointments (on Posts Within the Purview of Public Service Commission) (Second Amendment) Rules. 1989, exercising power under Article 309 of the Constitution and the same were published on 7 -8 -1989 by which the benefit of Regularisation was extended to persons directly appointed on ad -hoc basis on or before October 1, 1986. On 3 -11 -1991 the State Government sought option from such ad -hoc employees, who had been selected by the Commission, for their appointment on the basis of the recommendation made by the Commission, but none of them gave any option. The State Government then passed an order on 15 -3 -1991 regularising the appointment of the petitioner and Respondents No. 2, 3, 7 to 17. Thereafter the State Government issued appointment orders to those candidates who had been selected by the Commission (other than those who were working on ad -hoc basis) on 10 -12 -1992 and 7 -9 -1993. A seniority -list was also circulated on 8 -5 -1995 in which the seniority of the petitioner and Respondents No. 2, 3, 7 to 17 was fixed from the date of their regularisation i.e. 15 -3 -1991 and the seniority of the other candidates selected by the Commission (other than those who were working on ad -hoc basis) was fixed from the date of their appointment i.e. 10 -12 -1992 and 7 -9 -1993.

(3.) WE have heard Sri A.K. Singh for the writ petitioners. S/Sri V.K. Burman and R.G. Padia, Senior Advocates, for the contesting respondents and have examined the record.