RAM KRIPAL KANAUJIA Vs. REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.2.1997(Annexure P-2) by which the respondents have cancelled the order dated 30.05.1990 (Annexure P3) by which the petitioner was regularized on the post of peon.

(2.) Briefly stated, on 20.11.1982, the petitioner was employed as peon on daily wages. He was regularized on the said post by the respondents vide order dated 30.05.1990 (Annexure P-3). On 30.10.1996, a notice (Annexure P-1) was issued to him to show cause as to why he be not de-regularized on the ground that when he was initially employed he had not completed 18 years of age and that after completing 18 years of age he could complete only for 3 years of service as on cut off date of 31.12.1988 as against 5 years service tenure required for regularization on the said date. As no reply was submitted by the petitioner, the respondents vide impugned order dated 26.02.1997 cancelled the order of his regularization on the ground that the services rendered by the petitioner prior to his attaining the age of majority cannot be counted for the purposes of regularization.

(3.) The petitioner submits that after the cancellation of order of regularization the second respondent/Vice Chancellor of the University vide Annexure P-6 directed that even though the petitioner had not completed the required period of five years on the relevant date but since the petitioner is working continuously for last five years, after attaining the age of 18 years, an order of his regularization be issued. He contends that the said direction (Annexure P-6) of the Vice Chancellor has not been complied with. He further contends that though the period of his service prior to his attaining the age of majority could not have been ignored, however, even assuming that on 31.12.1988 he could not complete five years of service after attaining the age of majority, still on the date of regularization, he had already completed the said period of five years of service and therefore he could not have been de- regularized or he ought to have been regularized as directed by the Vice Chancellor.