YADVENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri D.S. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 12.4.2006 (Annexure -16 to the writ petition) passed by Divisional Director, Social Forestry Division, Lalitpur (respondent No. 4) rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization on the post of Forest Guard under 'U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001' (hereinafter referred to as 2001 Rules), the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the same. The claim of the petitioner for regularization under 2001 Rules has been rejected on the ground that there was no vacancy available on the date of commencement of the said Rules, i.e, 21.12.2001 whereagainst the petitioner could have been considered for regularization.

(3.) 2001 Rules clearly provides that the incumbent would be considered for regularization thereunder only against such permanent or temporary vacancies, as available in Group 'D' Posts on the date of commencement of those rules. It is, thus, evident that the aforesaid rules for regularization are only one time arrangement and applicable against only those vacancies as were available on the date of commencement of Rules, namely, 21.12.2001 and the subsequent vacancies are not within the purview of 2001 Rules and could not have been allowed to be occupied by adopting the process of regularization under 2001 Rules. If this contention is accepted, that would amount to reading certain words in the Rules not written there, which is not permissible in law.