SANJAI AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was engaged on an ad hoc basis as a Computer Operator for a period of 6 months in the year 2002, has been successful in continuing in such short spells since then, till the impugned order dated 25.2.2006 communicated the order of the Hon'ble Administrative Judge, refusing to accord sanction for the extension of the petitioner's appointment and such similarly situated employees. The said refusal is contained in Annexure-14 to the writ petition, which has been impugned in the present writ petition on the ground that the order of the Administrative Judge is without jurisdiction; that the order impugned is in contravention of the Circular of the High Court dated 27.5.1992; that the petitioner is nowhere at fault for non-compliance of the directions contained in the communication dated 24.9.2004 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition); and finally that the services of the petitioner are still required as the posts are still available.

(2.) Sri G.S. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has produced the copies of the letters issued by this Court granting extension to the tenure of the petitioner for a period of 6 months from time to time, and the last extension, which was sanctioned, was vide order dated 2.4.2005 up to 6.8.2005. The learned District Judge, Moradabad, has thereafter written letters to this Court requesting for further extension and in his letter dated 28.7.2005 he has stated that there is a requirement of both the employees including the petitioner. The District Judge sent another reminder on 23.11.2005 to this Court for permission for the extension of the service of the petitioner and another employee of the same category upon which the District Judge was communicated the decision impugned in the present writ petition.

(3.) The Apex Court and this Court has been, time and again, rendering judgments deprecating the continuance of adhocism in the matters of appointment where regular posts are available. Not only this, the system of ad hoc appointments de horse the Rules under the garb of exigency have also been deprecated and it has been held that such a situation should be avoided and not perpetuated. The present case is a clear example of the perpetuation of ad hoc continuance in spite of a clear direction of this Court for making regular appointments forthwith as is evident from the letter dated 24.9.2004 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition). It appears that keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, the Hon'ble Administrative Judge passed the orders which is impugned in the present writ petition.