Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2913 (ALL)

BHANU PRATAP SINGH v. COLLECTOR GHAZIPUR

2007-12-04

RAKESH TIWARI

body2007
RAKESH TIWARI, J. Heard Counsels for the parties and perused the record. 2. The petitioner claims that he passed High School Examination in 1979 and intermediate examination in 1981 from the U. P. Board of High School and Intermediate, Examinations, Allahabad. He further claims that he being physically handicapped, was appointed on ad hoc basis as Assistant Wasil Baaqi Navis in the Revenue Record Room, Ghazipur for a period of six months vide order dated 1-6-1986 passed by the Collector, Ghazipur. He claims that 143 posts of Assistant Wasil Baaqi Navis were laying vacant in the district and as per Government instructions, 2% of vacancies was reserved for physically handicapped candidates. Out of 3 posts earmarked for physically handicapped persons, the petitioner alongwith one Sri Hari Mohan Singh were working on two of the three reserved posts for physically handicapped persons. 3. It is alleged that Government order dated 18-7-1988 issued by the Samaj Kalyan Vibhag of the State of U. P. , laid down policy for regularization of services of the candidates who had been appointed one year prior to the issuance of the Government Order, i. e. , in 1987 or thereafter. 4. The petitioner, on the strength of aforesaid Government order, claimed for regularization of his services. 5. The Collector, Ghazipur sought clarification and necessary orders from Government vide his letter dated 13-1-1989, appended as Annexure V to the writ petition. According to the Collector, the aforesaid Government order dated 18-7-1988 did not provide any rules or procedure for regularization. When no clarification or order was received from the Government, the Collector Ghazipur passed the following order dated 24-2-1989 : "i have seen the file. In view of Commissioners order dated 10-7-1988, Sri Jai Prakash Lal may be allowed to continue and others at Sl. Nos. 2 to 5 may be terminated as they are all ad hoc. Orders may be issued accordingly. Sd/-Jagan Mathew Collector, Ghazipur 24-2-1989" 6. The contention of Counsel for the petitioner it that there is no complaint against the petitioner and out of four persons, whose services were terminated, the petitioner was the only physically handicapped person. Despite the fact that there were three posts earmarked for physically handicapped persons, as such, the services of the petitioner were illegally terminated. The contention of Counsel for the petitioner it that there is no complaint against the petitioner and out of four persons, whose services were terminated, the petitioner was the only physically handicapped person. Despite the fact that there were three posts earmarked for physically handicapped persons, as such, the services of the petitioner were illegally terminated. It is stated that in these circumstances, the petitioner has prayed for the reliefs of quashing the impugned order dated 24-2- 1989 aforesaid passed by the Collector Ghazipur and for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to terminate the services of the petitioner without following regularization procedure. 7. From perusal of record, it appears that the writ petition was dismissed in default vide order dated 20- 7-2001 and the interim order was discharged. On recall application, the order dated 20-7-2001 was recalled and the case was restored to its original number vide order dated 19-5-2005. The order is as under : "hon. Ashok Bhushan, j Heard Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. This is an application for recall of the order dated 20-7-2001 by which the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. There is delay in filing the application. Sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay. The delay in filing the application is condoned. Sufficient cause has also been shown for recall of the order dated 20-7-2001. The application is allowed. Order dated 20-7-2001 is recalled. The writ petition is restored to its original number. List the writ petition before the appropriate Bench. Dated 19-5-2005 Sd/-Illegible" 8. A perusal of the aforesaid order reveals that it was not made clear as to whether interim order was restored or not. Thus, the position which emerges is that there does not exist any interim order in the instant case. However, Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has been working continuously till today. 9. Standing Counsel submits that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on ad hoc basis for a specified period of six months w. e. f. 1-6-1986. Inviting attention of the Court to paragraphs 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Counter-affidavit, he urged that there were only 151 sanctioned posts, out of them, there were only 36 posts of Assistant Revenue Accountant. Inviting attention of the Court to paragraphs 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Counter-affidavit, he urged that there were only 151 sanctioned posts, out of them, there were only 36 posts of Assistant Revenue Accountant. On reserved seats, the appointments were being made by regular selection committee and for one post, there was no reservation. 10. It is vehemently urged by him that the petitioner was not appointed as physically handicapped candidate on any vacancy for handicapped persons but was appointed on the recommendation of the then Revenue Minister, U. P. He urged that the petitioner is not legally entitled to be retained in service as he was an ad hoc employee and was not appointed after valid selection in accordance with Recruitment Rules. 11. Considering rival submissions advanced by Counsels for the parties, this Court is of considered view that the petitioner was not regularly appointed as Assistant Wasil Baaqi Navis after following the procedures prescribed in the Recruitment Rules but was appointed on ad hoc basis for six months on the recommendation of the then Revenue Minister of the State. He, therefore, has no legal right to continue after expiry of six months. Even if he continued in service after six months on the strength of interim orders of this Court, this will not give him any legal right to hold the post continuously as permanent employee as he was not appointed in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. If appointments on ad hoc basis made on the recommendations of Ministers are allowed to be made permanent by orders of the Courts, this will amount to encouraging illegal and arbitrary back-door entries in Government Service depriving the legitimate right of the genuine candidates from open market. 12. Admittedly, the petitioner was working on ad hoc basis. Prayer for regularization of services cannot be granted by High Court in exercise of extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in view of decision of Honble Apex Court in State of Punjab & Anr. v. Sardara Singh, 1998 (9) SCC 709 . 13. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .