ADITYA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

(2.) The names of the petitioners were sent by the Employment Exchange for appointment in the year 1987. They faced Selection Committee and thereafter they were appointed on 20/2/1987 on the post of Investigator-cum-Computer in the department of Animal Husbandry. Petitioners have been working in the same department since their appointment. Their representation for regularization was rejected by order dtd. 16/2/2018. They filed the present writ petition in the year 2021 when they were in age group of 56-59 years i.e., nearing their superannuation. Meanwhile, petitioners no.3 and 4 have retired during pendency of the writ petition.

(3.) The aforesaid facts itself show that the petitioners have spent their entire life working in the respondent-department, but were never regularized. By impugned order dtd. 16/2/2018 their representation for regularization is rejected on the following grounds: (i) that they do not posses the required educational qualification for the post of Assistant Statistical Officer; (ii) that the petitioners were working on a fixed pay scale of Rs.10,000.00 and were not daily wager; (iii) that they were appointed under a Scheme and the Scheme is extended from year to year; and (iv) that their posts are different than the cadre post and hence, they are not covered by the Regularization Rules.