Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.:— In the instant case the issue which needs to be decided by the Court is as to whether the deficiency in the form of lack of experience at the time of initial engagement of the petitioner as Electrician in work-charge establishment of the Irrigation Department would be deemed to have been made good by long continuance of the petitioner on the said post for a period of 38 years and if the issue is answered positively, as to whether the reasons indicated by the Executive Engineer in his order dated 18.07.2011 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his services are sustainable or not and further as to whether the petitioner is eligible to be regularized on his post. 2. Heard Shri Y.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the opposite parties. 3. Since the affidavits in the case have been exchanged, the Court proceeds to decide the matter finally. 4. The facts of the case, as culled out from the pleadings of the parties which are available on the record, in nutshell are that the petitioner was initially engaged as Electrician in work-charge establishment of the opposite parties on 15.01.1973 and since then, he has been working continuously on the said post till now i.e. for a period of more than about 38 years. 5. For the purposes of absorption of the work-charge employees on regular basis various Government Orders have been issued, such as G.O. Dated 07.02..1981, Office Memorandum issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department dated 23.12.1982 and various other orders issued for ensuring the compliance of the judgment and order dated 10.01.1996 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.140 of 1989, Raj Narain Prasad and others Versus The State of U.P.and others. 6. The case put-forth by the petitioner is that despite the aforesaid circulars and orders requiring the opposite parties to regularly absorb the work-charge employees, the case of the petitioner was not being considered for regularization of his services, though the services of various other incumbents who were engaged subsequent to the engagement of the petitioner, were considered for regularization and benefit of regularization/regular absorption on their respective posts was given to them. The petitioner, therefore filed a writ petition before this Court in the year 2000 bearing number 934 (S/S) of 2000 which was finally disposed of by this Court by means of order dated 11.03.2011directing the Executive Engineer, Sinchai Khand, Sitapur to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his service in accordance with law, relevant Rules, Regulations and Government Orders. In compliance of the aforesaid judgment of this Court dated 11.03.2011, the case of the petitioner has been considered by the Executive Engineer by means of the order dated 18.07.2011 whereby the claim of the petitioner for regularizing his service has been rejected. Challenging the said order dated 18.07.2011, the instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner inter-alia on the ground that the reason indicated by the Executive Engineer for rejecting his claim in the impugned order is not sustainable. 7. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the initial engagement of the petitioner was made in the year 1973 whereas, the Service Rules known as U.P. Irrigation Department Mechanic Service Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the "Service Rules,1984") were notified in the year 1984. The Service Rules, 1984 are on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the reason indicated by the Executive Engineer to the effect that since the initial engagement of the petitioner in the work-charge establishment was not as per Service Rules, 1984 and the G.O. Dated 16.06.2003 as such the fact that the petitioner has continued for a long period will not confer any right of regularization, is not sustainable. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, at the time of his initial engagement on 15.01.1973 in work-charge establishment possessed the educational qualification but he did not have the requisite experience. However, working in the work-charge establishment for a period of 38 years, he has gained enough experience and the aforesaid deficiency of lack of experience at the time of initial engagement has now been made good and thus, the reasons given by the Executive Engineer while passing the impugned order dated 18.07.2011, being completely irrational, cannot sustain. 8. However, working in the work-charge establishment for a period of 38 years, he has gained enough experience and the aforesaid deficiency of lack of experience at the time of initial engagement has now been made good and thus, the reasons given by the Executive Engineer while passing the impugned order dated 18.07.2011, being completely irrational, cannot sustain. 8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties has tried strenuously to convince the Court that as per dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Versus Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 and also in the case of Uma Rani Versus Registrar, Co-operative Societies and others, reported in 2004(7) SCC, 112, since the petitioner did not fulfill the requisite qualification at the time of his initial engagement, as such his long continuance will not confer any right for regularization of his services. 9. I have considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for respective parties and have also perused the documents available on the record of the case. 10. The reasons indicated by the Executive Engineer while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his services is that since at the time of his initial engagement, the petitioner did not have requisite five years' experience of working in a work-shop, which is the requirement as per Rule 8 of the Service Rules,1984 for direct recruitment on the post of Electrician, as such the petitioner does not have any right to get his services regularized. The other reason indicated by the Executive Engineer for rejecting the claim of the petitioner is that as per G.O. Dated 16.03.2003, the requisite eligibility for direct recruitment on the post of Electrician was determined, according to which a person seeking direct recruitment to the post in question should have qualification of High School (with Science) to his credit and he should also possess Two Years Certificate in Electrician Trade from the I.T.I. and further that he should have one year's working experience as Electrician. According to the impugned order, since the petitioner did not fulfill the requisite eligibility as given in the Service Rules, 1984 and also as given in G.O. Dated 16.06.2003 and hence his initial engagement was not as per service Rules and the G.O. Dated 16.06.2003 and thus he cannot be regularized. 11. According to the impugned order, since the petitioner did not fulfill the requisite eligibility as given in the Service Rules, 1984 and also as given in G.O. Dated 16.06.2003 and hence his initial engagement was not as per service Rules and the G.O. Dated 16.06.2003 and thus he cannot be regularized. 11. A perusal of Rule 8 of the Service Rules, 1984 reveals that for the purposes of Direct Recruitment in the cadre except the post of Helper, the candidate should be Junior High School passed and he should have certificate from the I.T.I. alongwith three years' work experience or he should have five years' work-experience. The G.O. Dated 16.06.2003, as quoted in the impugned order, provides that the candidate seeking direct recruitment to the post of Electrician should possess High School (with Science) qualification alongwith two years I.T.I. Certificate in the Trade of Electrician to his credit and one year's work experience. 12. Admittedly, the petitioner at the time of his initial engagement was having Junior High School qualification but he did not have I.T.I. Certificate with three years' work experience to his credit or five years' work experience to his credit. From the facts pleaded in the writ petition, it is clear that the petitioner was having Junior High School qualification at the time of his initial engagement on the post but lacked the work experience as per the prescription made in Rule 8 of the Service Rules,1984. 13. However, it is worth noticeable that admittedly the petitioner has continued as Electrician in work charge establishment in Irrigation department for 38 years which is considerably a long period. 14. As observed above, the question which falls for consideration of this Court is as to whether the deficiency which the petitioner suffered in the form of lack of experience at the time of his initial engagement would be treated to have been made good on his long continuance of 38 years or not. 15. 14. As observed above, the question which falls for consideration of this Court is as to whether the deficiency which the petitioner suffered in the form of lack of experience at the time of his initial engagement would be treated to have been made good on his long continuance of 38 years or not. 15. In this regard a reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Buddhi Nath Chaudhary and others Versus Abahi Kumar and others, (2001) 3 SCC 328 wherein the initial appointment of the selected candidates attacked on the ground of lack of experience was saved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on equitable considerations observing therein that the appointed candidates, being in employment for over a decade and having worked in the post for a long time, would have necessarily acquired the requisite experience. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed that the lack of experience, if any, at the time of initial appointment was made good now after they have worked for a period of over a decade. Relevant Paragraph-6 of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is being quoted below :- " 6. The selected candidates, who have been appointed, are now in employment as Motor Vehicle Inspectors for over a decade. Now that they have worked in such posts for a long time, necessarily they would have acquired the requisite experience. Lack of experience, if any, at the time of recruitment is made good now. Therefore, the new exercise ordered by the High Court will only lead to anomalous results. Since we are disposing of these matters on equitable consideration, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that their cases for appointment should also be considered. It is not clear whether there is any vacancy for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors. If that is so, unless any one or more of the selected candidates are displaced, if that is so, unless any one or more of the selected candidates are displaced, the cases of the contesting respondents cannot be considered. We think that such adjustment is not feasible for practical reasons. We have extended equitable considerations to such selected candidates who have worked in the post for a long period, but the contesting respondents do not come in that class. We think that such adjustment is not feasible for practical reasons. We have extended equitable considerations to such selected candidates who have worked in the post for a long period, but the contesting respondents do not come in that class. The effect of our conclusion is that appointments made long back pursuant to a sele3ction need not be disturbed. Such a view can be derived from several decisions of this Court including the decisions in Ram Sarup Versus State of Haryana; District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society Versus M.Tripura Sundari Devi and H.C. Puttaswamy Versus Hon'ble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore. Therefore, we must let the matters lie where they are." 16. In the instant case also, though at the time of his initial engagement the petitioner fulfilled the requisite educational qualification of having passed Junior High School but lacked five years' work experience. It is also note-worthy that the requisite qualification at the time of petitioner's initial engagement made in the year 1973 have not been disclosed by the opposite parties. The service Rules were framed in the year 1984 which provide that for direct recruitment the candidate should be Junior High School and he should have I.T.I. Certificate alongwith three years experience or he should have five years' work experience. Rule 8 of the Service Rules, 1984 is being quoted below :- @ Hindi @ 17. The prescription in the G.O. Dated 16.03.2003 to the effect that the candidate seeking direct recruitment should possess High School (with Science) qualification alongwith two years' I.T.I. Certificate in Electrician Trade with work experience of one year to his credit was also provided much after the engagement of the petitioner initially made in the year 1973. However, even if the aforesaid eligibility conditions are applied in the case of the petitioner also, merely because the petitioner at the time of his initial engagement lacked the requisite work experience will not dis-entitle him to seek regularization of his service as the Court holds that the deficiency, if any, in the form of lack of work experience at the time of initial engagement has now been made good on account of the fact that the petitioner has worked for 38 long years in the post of Electrician itself. 18. 18. For the aforesaid reasons and also relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Buddhi Nath Chaudhary and others (Supra), the Court holds that the reasons indicated by the Executive Engineer while rejecting the claim of the petitioner by means of the impugned order dated 18.07.2011 are not sustainable. Lack of experience at the time of initial engagement of the petitioner has been made good now and hence his case requires to be considered for regularization of his services in the light of the observations made herein-above in the judgment. 19. For the fore-going discussions, the impugned order dated 18.07.2011 passed by the Executive Engineer, Sinchai Khand,Sitapur as contained in Annexure no.1 to the writ petition is hereby quashed. 20. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Sitapur, the opposite party no.5 to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services in accordance with the observations made herein-above. 21. It is further directed that the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Sitapur, the opposite party no.5 shall consider the matter of regularization of the services of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is furnished to him and in any case before 29.02.2012 when the petitioner is to attain the age of superannuation. It is further directed that the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services shall be considered and decided with effect from the date the incumbents junior to the petitioner in the work-charge establishment were given benefit of regularization of their services. 22. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed. _____________