SALIM AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.

(2.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 24.1.2000, passed by opposite party No. 3, i.e., the Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute, by which the services of the petitioner were terminated under Rule 8 of the U. P. Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointment on Group 'C Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Instructor, Mechanical Draftsman in the Government Industrial Training Institute, Sewaar, district Rampur w.e.f. 12.12.1990 and he continued as such with some breaks till the date of coming into force of the U. P. Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointment on Group 'C Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regularisation Rules of 1998', in which it was provided that the persons who were working on daily wage basis since 29th June, 1991, were liable to be regularised against the Group 'C posts, but the petitioner's regularisation was not considered. As such, he filed W.P. No. 1481 (S/S) of 1995, in which a direction was issued to consider his regularisation vide order dated 6.7.1999, in pursuance of which a selection committee was constituted, which after considering the regularisation of the petitioner found that there were breaks in service and the longest break is from 8.7.1992 to 23.3.1999. There is a Government order No. 3803-Ka/36-5-99-7 (281)/88, dated 21.10.1999. in paragraph 2 whereof it has been directed that the case of the persons appointed on daily wage basis shall not be covered by the Regularisation Rules of 1998, if there is no continuity of service. Therefore, considering that the case of the petitioner does not come within the scope of aforesaid Rules of 1998, it was decided that the petitioner cannot be regularised under those Rules but the selection committee recommended the termination of the petitioner under Rule 8 of the Regularisation Rules.