BRIJESH KUMAR TIWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the relief of mandamus directing respondents to regularize his service and to pay salary regularly and a further mandamus not to dispense with his service and not to make any appointment in his locum as stenographer.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, a brief resume of necessary facts bearing on the controversy may be stated. The petitioner having obtained diploma in commercial and secretarial practice from Maharana Pratap Polytechnic Gorakhpur was articled to the office of Mukhya Nagar Adhikari Nagar Nigam Gorakhpur to serve as apprentice wherein he joined on 12-4-1994. He continued as such upto 1998. He was again offered appointment as stenographer in the year 1999. By means of letter dated 26th May, 1999, Mukhya Nagar Adhikari communicated to the Principal Secretary Nagar Vikas, Government of U. P. the requirement of the posts and sought sanction of seven posts of stenographers. In the meantime, some orders were issued by the Government of U. P. embodying therein the direction not to create new posts. It would appear from the record that a fresh request was made by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari this time, seeking sanction of two posts of stenographer attended with the request to grant imprimatur to continue the petitioner who has already been at work in the Nagar Nigam as stenographer. As a sequel to this letter, Special Secretary, Government of U. P. sought certain information by means of letter dated 17th December, 1999 revolving round the terms and conditions of service of stenographer, which the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari furnished by means of letter dated 23-12-1999. Accordingly, Government of U. P. accorded approbation to the Nagar Nigam Gorakhpur to appoint petitioner as stenographer on contract basis pending creation of new posts. Again by means of letter dated 27-3- 2002, Mukhya Nagar Adhikari apprised State of U. P. regarding extension of service of the petitioner till 30th September, 2002 and sought instructions if any otherwise in the matter. By means of letter dated 19th October, 2003, the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari again sent a letter to the State of U. P. seeking permission to continue petitioner in the service of Nagar Nigam congruent with the requirements of the Nagar Nigam but in the meantime, some letter came to be issued by Special Secretary U. P. Shasan Lucknow which had its genesis in U. P. Public Services (Regulation of Appointments) Adhyadesh, 2001, thereby declining extension to the appointment of the petitioner. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioner felt aggrieved and preferred the instant petition.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, no selection has taken place in Nagar Nigam Gorakhpur and therefore, no question arises for giving preference to the petitioner qua others. It is also obvious in the conspectus of facts that the Nagar Nigam sought creation of posts of stenographers and there is no existing post on which any regularization could be claimed. Besides, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to pinpoint any provision, which contemplates regularization of persons sans any existing sanctioned post. In the above perspective, it therefore, follows that there exists no sanctioned post and even otherwise, the learned counsel has not adverted to any provision, which could furnish foundation for regularization of the petitioner as stenographer in the Nagar Nigam. Mere letter containing requirement of the Nagar Nigam cannot be stretched so far as to mean that he could be considered for regularization pending sanction of such posts. There must be sanctioned post on the anvil of which claim for regularization could be sustained. In view of above discussion, the questions (i) and (ii) are answered in negative.