MEHAMOOD AKHATAR Vs. SOBRAN SINGH YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed on the allegation that the opposite parties have violated the order passed by this Court dated 21-12-2001 in Writ Petition No. 19333 of 2000, Mehamood Akhtar v. State of U. P. and order dated 19-4-2002 passed on the review petition No. 33405 of 2002.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was working in their respective department as confirmed employee. It would appear that on the creation of new department known as Backward Class Welfare Department w.e.f. 12-8-1995 an advertisement was issued in the newspaper to the effect that appointment for the functioning for the new Directorate in the new depart-merit will have to.be made at the divisional/ district levels on the gazetted and non-gazetted temporary posts indicated in the notification, for the period commencing from the date of notification or the date of appointment, whichever happens to be later and ending on 29-2-1996 unless terminated earlier. A letter dated 20-9-1995 was issued from the office of the Chief Secretary, U.P. Government, Lucknow visualizing that the appointments on the post of gazetted and non-gazetted posts in the new Department would be made on temporary basis on transfer/deputation from other departments. According to the said communication, 53 posts of District Backward Class Welfare Officer were vacant in various districts. Another letter dated 18-12-1995 was issued by the Chief Secretary to various Secretaries and other departmental heads informing them that appointments on the gazetted posts of District Backward Classes Welfare Officer would have to be made on the recommen dation by the Union Public Service Commission but since it would take time, appointments may be made by way of transfer/ deputation from other departments such as Vikas Vibhag, Chikitsa Vibhag, Shiksha Vibhag, Shiksha Vibhag and officers who have had sufficient experience and were willing to go to the present posts post may be selected for appointment or service trans fer/deputation basis. The petitioners, it is alleged, applied and were selected for appointment to the posts of District Backward Classes Welfare Officers which they accepted in the hope that they would later on be absorbed in the department. It is further alleged that though the petitioner were appointed on deputation but no deputation allowance was ever paid to them. Selection, it is further alleged, was made after due recommendation by the departmental selection committee.

(3.) Respondents, however, issued an advertisement dated 11-1-1989 in the newspaper Rashtriya Sahara inviting applications for regular appointments to the 52 posts of Backward Classes Welfare Officer through Public Service Commission on the basis of a preliminary final examination. Pursuant to the said advertisement U.P. Public Service Commissioner completed the selection, the final result of which, it is alleged, was expected to come in the first week of May, 2000. Some of the petitioners, it is alleged, preferred representations to the Director, Backward Class Welfare Department to the effect that a provision was made for absorption in the draft Niyamawali known as U. P. Adhinastha Seva Chayan Ayog Vaiyaktik Sahayak Niyaamawali, 1995 but the Public Service Commission in exercise of powers under Article 320 of the Constitution of India declined to approve the clause providing for absorption of deputationist in the U.P. Backward Class Gazetted Officers Service Rules, 1998. The representation having been rejected by the State Government vide order dated 31-8-1999 (Annexure No. 13) to the writ petition No. 49798 of 1999 and thus the petitioners have approached this Court for the aforesaid reliefs."