UDAI BHAN SINGH v. STATE OF U P — 1996 DIGILAW 1272 (ALL)

S. C. VERMA, J. ( 1 ) THE present petition is directed against the order dated 2-5-1990 passed by U. P. Public services Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 617/1/85 and the order dated 31-5-1991 passed on the Review Petition, wherein the claim of the petitioner for promotion with effect from initial date of appointment and the determination of seniority has been rejected. ( 2 ) THE Petitioner Udai Bhan Singh was given temporary ad hoc appointment on the post of lecturer in Electrical Engineering by order dated 20-8-1973. The appointment of the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 400-900/- was to continue till a regularly selected candidate is made available or till further orders whichever is earlier. The ad hoc appointment of the petitioner continued and in the meantime the post of Lecturer in Electrical Engineering was advertised for regular appointment through U. P. Public Service Commission. The petitioners candidature was considered and he was selected by the U. P. Public Service Commission. The U. P. Public Service commission through letter dated 6-8-1979 submitted its recommendation in respect of 11 selected candidates in order of merit and the petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 11 selected in the reserved category of dependents of Freedom Fighters. In the said selection 74 candidates had applied, out of which 62 candidates were called to interview. Only 33 candidates appeared for interview sometime in January, 1979 and thereafter list of selected candidates was recommended through letter dated 6-8-1979. The State Government through letter dated 29-1-1980 appointed s/sir Om Prakash, respondent No. 4, Srikant Malviya, respondent No. 6, Ramesh Chandra agrawal, Himmat Sahai, respondent No. 7, Anand Kumar Singh, respondent No. 5, Radhey shyam Chaudhary, Vinod Chandra Sharma, respondent No. 9, Ram Surat Misra, respondent No. 8 and Chhotey Lal Katiyar, respondent No. 10. By another order dated 7-7-1981, the petitioner udai Bhan Singh and Roop Lal Yadav, were also given regular appointment on the post of lecturer, Electrical Engineering. ( 3 ) IN the Claim Petition before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, the petitioner had also challenged the appointment of Sri Irfan Hussain and Sri D. M. Tripathi alleging that their initial appointment was later than the petitioner and they were wrongly promoted earlier overlooking the seniority of the petitioner. ( 3 ) IN the Claim Petition before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, the petitioner had also challenged the appointment of Sri Irfan Hussain and Sri D. M. Tripathi alleging that their initial appointment was later than the petitioner and they were wrongly promoted earlier overlooking the seniority of the petitioner. The U. P. Public Services Tribunal held that Sri D. M. Tripathi) and irfan Hussain, had appeared before the U. P. Public Service Commission in regular selection in pursuance to the advertisement dated 7-7-1972 and they were selected by the U. P. Public Service commission on 23-10-1973 and thereafter they were given appointment on the basis of the above selection. Both Sri D. M. Tripathi and Irfan Hussain have been held to be senior to the petitioner as they were regularly appointed and they were also promoted to the higher post which has also been held to be valid. ( 4 ) THE petitioner claims that seniority of the petitioner in the department on the post of Lecturer in Electrical Engineering should be reckoned from his initial appointment with effect from 20-8-1973. The petitioner has alleged that he fulfilled the requisite qualification and he had worked continuously on ad hoc basis. The U. P. Public Service Commission approved and regularised the appointment of the petitioner and as such the past services are also liable to be computed for his seniority. It may be indicated that before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, the petitioner has not taken the plea of regularisation under the Rules of U. P. Ad hoc Appointment regularisation (on the post within the purview of Public Service Commission), Rule 1979. The only basis on which the petitioner has claimed his seniority was his prior appointment on ad hoc basis which ultimately resulted into a regular appointment after approval by the U. P. Public service Commission. ( 5 ) IN sofar as the order of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, dated 2-5-1990 is concerned, the petitioners claim for seniority against Sri D. N. Tripathi and Sri Irfan Hussain has been rightly rejected as the petitioner did not apply for regular recruitment in pursuance to the advertisement dated 7-7-1972 by the U. P. Public Service Commission and he did not appear for selection. Sri d. M. Tripathi and Sri Irfan Hussain were selected by the U. P. Public Service Commission and were given regular appointment in the year 1975. They became senior to the petitioner who at that time remained as ad hoc employee. ( 6 ) THE U. P. Public Services Tribunal has rightly disallowed the claim of the petitioner to be given the benefit of ad hoc tenure as all the respondents including the petitioner had applied to the U. P. Public Service Commission as a direct recruit and were selected by the U. P. Public service Commission by order dated 6-8-1979 in order of merit. It may be noted that the said selection was not for regularisation of the ad hoc appointment which is established from the fact that selection process had completed before the enforcement of Ad hoc Regularisation Rules, 1979. The petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 11 in the select list prepared by the U. P. Public service Commission and the placement of the petitioner by giving regular appointment, through order dated 7-7-1981 is in accordance with merit list prepared by the U. P. Public Service commission. The U. P. Public Services Trubunal was Justified in holding that the petitioner cannot be given seniority on the basis of initial appointment with effect from 20-8-1973 and respondents have not committed any error in allowing the respondents Nos. 3 to 11 to be treated as senior to the petitioner. ( 7 ) IN the present petition the petitioner has also raised a plea of being denied regularisation under the U. P. Ad hoc Appointment Regularisation (on the posts within the purview of Public Service commission) Rules, 1979 and has claimed that in view of the enforcement of Rules in 1979 the services of the petitioner would be deemed to be regularised in 1979. The learned Counsel has placed strong reliance on the law laid down in the case of Baleshwer Das and Ors. v. State U. P. and Ors. , 1981 Supreme Court Reports 449, G. P. Goyal and Ors. v. Chief Secretary, Government of U. P. , 1985 U. P. Local Bodies and Educational Cases 4 and Direct Recruitment Class II engineers Association v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. , 1990 (8), Lucknow Civil Decisions 449. v. State U. P. and Ors. , 1981 Supreme Court Reports 449, G. P. Goyal and Ors. v. Chief Secretary, Government of U. P. , 1985 U. P. Local Bodies and Educational Cases 4 and Direct Recruitment Class II engineers Association v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. , 1990 (8), Lucknow Civil Decisions 449. ( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY the ad hoc services of the petitioner have not been regularised at any point of time, on the other hand the petitioner had applied as a direct recruit in the selection held by the U. P. Public Service Commission on the basis of the advertisement issued inviting applications for direct recruitment. The petitioner was interviewed in January 1979 alongwith the other candidates of the department who had also applied directly. In the selection held by the U. P public Service Commission a merit list of selected candidates was prepared. In this the petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 11. As the petitioner had already been selected on the basis of the said recruitment in the year 1979 and the recommendations after selection were sent to the government through letter dated 6-8-1979 by the U. P. Public Service Commission, there was no occasion for the case of the petitioner being considered for regularisation of ad hoc services. At that time the petitioner had not laid his claim for regularisation of his services rightly because the regularisation Rules were not enforced in the years 1979 when the selection had already taken place in January, 1979. The claim of the petitioner for regularisation of his ad hoc services and seniority to be reckoned from the date of his initial appointment date i. e. 20-8-1973 has been rightly rejected by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal and his claim in this regard is not tenable in law. ( 9 ) THE law laid down by Honble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions cannot be applied to any advantage in favour of the petitioner as the petitioner had accepted his appointment on the basis of the selection held in the year 1979 and the order dated 7-7-1981 for his regular appointment by direct recruitment. ( 9 ) THE law laid down by Honble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions cannot be applied to any advantage in favour of the petitioner as the petitioner had accepted his appointment on the basis of the selection held in the year 1979 and the order dated 7-7-1981 for his regular appointment by direct recruitment. The petitioner has not been able to placed any material on record that any of the respondents who have been placed senior to the petitioner and promoted prior to the petitioner was placed below the petitioner in the merit list prepared by the U. P. Public Service Commission and recommended to the Government. The Government has given regular appointment to the incumbents strictly in serial order of merit recommended by the U. P. Public Service Commission. Further the claim of the petitioner to be given the seniority from the date of initial appointment and the ad hoc tenure of service to be included for determination of seniority is not in accordance with law. ( 10 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of the u. P. Public Services Trubunal. The petition is devoid of merit and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The petition is accordingly dismissed. ( 11 ) THERE shall be no order as to cost. . .