VED PRAKASH SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHISHIR Kumar, J. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 29-9-2004 and 18-11-2004 (Annexures 3 to the writ petition ). Further issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue and further direction for constituting the Selection Committee to take final decision with regard to regularization of ad hoc appointees or to absorb the petitioners on the post likely to be vacant due to promotions.

(2.) THE facts arising out of the present writ petition are that the petitioner No. 1 was appointed on 1-7- 1999 on the post of Typist-cum-clerk on ad hoc basis against the sanctioned vacant post initially for a period of three months in the newly created Judgeship of District Kaushambi. THE petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Stenographer on ad hoc basis. THE nature of appointment of both the petitioners are the same. Both the petitioners have completed three years of continuous service, moved separate representations to the respondent No. 3 for regularizing their services under their judgeship. After receiving the representation of the petitioners the then District and Session Judge, Kaushambi sent a detailed report for regularization of ad hoc employees in the Hon'ble High Court for a direction in this regard. THE same was placed before the Inspecting Judge and after close scrutiny, the matter was sent back to the District Judge to take appropriate action in the matter of regularization of the employees of the district. THE respondent No. 3 should have considered the case of the petitioners regarding regularization. However, the respondent No. 3 vide its letter dated 11-12-2002 requested the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge for extension of services of the employees working on ad hoc basis in his judgeship from the date of their joining to 31-1-2003. In pursuance of the aforesaid letter, the Inspecting Judge of the Kaushambi Judgeship has communicated the respondent No. 3 and directed not to make any ad hoc appointment, however, the persons who are working on ad hoc basis may be considered for regularization according to Rules. A Selection Committee was constituted for the purposes of regularizing the services of ad hoc appointees and requested the High Court to allow the ad hoc appointees who were working since long to continue till the selection process is over. Instead of giving permission an order was passed on 20-5-2003 terminating the services of all the ad hoc employees. A writ petition was filed before this Court and by order dated 28-5-2003, an interim order was granted and subsequently by order dated 9-7-2003, an advertisement was issued in the newspaper for recruitment of stenographer, Typist-cum- clerk and class IV employee. Since the petitioners were assured for regularization of their services by the then District Judge they applied in pursuance of the advertisement. It was also provided that the persons working on ad hoc basis will be considered for appointment by the District Judge and shall be allowed to complete in the regular selection while granting permission to file application of appearing in the examination within a week.

(3.) PETITIONERS submit that in spite of the aforesaid order, the claim of the petitioners has not been considered.