MANISH KUMAR MALVIYA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondent No.1 and to Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

(2.) Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was selected on Group-C post in a selection proceeding and was granted ad-hoc appointment on the post of Clerk on 6.4.1998. A proceeding of direct recruitment was initiated by issuing advertisement on 17.4.2001. The petitioner challenged the advertisement by filing Writ Petition No.2779 (S/S) of 2001, wherein an interim order was granted by this Court on 25.6.2001 that until further orders of this Court, District Judgeship, Ambedkar Nagar was restrained to make any appointment for the post of Stenographer and Clerk in pursuance of the impugned advertisement dated 17.4.2001.

(3.) The State Government issued a notification by making amendment in U.P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 vide notification dated 20.12.2001, which is known as U.P. Regularisation of Ad-Hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) (3rd Amendment) Rules, 2001, whereby cut-off date was fixed in regard to the regularization of services of the employees who were granted appointment on ad-hoc basis prior to 30.6.1998.