ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 28.2.2001 whereby his engagement on daily wage basis on a class IV post has been cancelled. He has thus prayed for quashing the said order and also for a direction to regularize him on a class IV post.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Pleadings have been exchanged and with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally.

(3.) The brief facts of this case are that the petitioner continued to work on a class IV post on daily wage basis from 3.6.1991 till the passing of the impugned order dated 28.2.2001. During this period proceedings for regularization had taken place by the respondent-department in which the petitioner was not regularized but was permitted to continue to work on daily wage basis. On a query made by the Deputy Commissioner, Trade Tax, on 26.8.1997 the Trade Tax Officer wrote that since the petitioner did not appear before the Selection Committee constituted for the purposes of regularization, hence he could not be regularized. Further, the petitioner kept agitating the matter and then again on a query made by the Deputy Commissioner, Trade Trade, the same Trade Tax Officer wrote on 3.5.2000 that the petitioner was not found suitable for regularization by the Selection Committee. The said Trade Tax Officer has been blowing hot and cold at the same time, once by saying that the petitioner did not appeared before the Selection Committee and then by saying that the petitioner had appear but was not found suitable for regularization. The petitioner then approached the Principal Secretary to the Government of U.P. and in response thereto the order dated 28.2.2001 has been passed stating that there is no post available for regularization and hence work on daily wage basis be also not taken from the petitioner. In the said order it has been stated that by approaching the Principal Secretary of the State Government, the petitioner has violated the terms of the U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956.