Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1018 (ALL)

Shailendra Kumar Singh v. State of U. P.

2024-04-09

J.J.MUNIR

body2024
JUDGMENT : J.J. Munir, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against an order of the Principal Secretary, Urban Development, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow dated 25.7.2023, rejecting the petitioner's claim for regularization in service. The petitioners have further prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to regularize the petitioners' services. 2. The facts, giving rise to the writ petition, are these: According to the petitioners, they are nine in number and working as daily-wagers on various Class-III and IV posts, eversince the date of their respective engagement in the establishment of the Nagar Panchayat, Harraiya, District Basti. They say that they have an unblemished service record to their credit. The petitioners' initial dates of engagement, the class and level of work done by them with the Nagar Panchayat, Harraiya, District Basti (for short, 'the Nagar Panchayat') are depicted below in tabular form: S. No. Petitioners Date of initial appointment Post 1 Shailendra Kumar Singh 25.08.2000 Clerk/Tax Collector 2 Vinay Kumar Singh 25.08.2000 Pump Operator Grade-II 3 Prithvi Nath Gupta 25.08.2000 Peon/Mali 4 Radheshyam 25.08.2000 Lineman 5 Anil Kumar 01.04.1996 Safai Karmi 6 Suraj Lal 01.04.1996 Safai Karmi 7 Nashirullah 01.04.1996 Safai Karmi 8 Mohan 01.12.1998 Safai Karmi 9 Ramesh 24.03.2000 Safai Karmi 3. It appears that by a Government Order dated 24.2.2016, the State Government introduced a scheme for the regularization of daily wagers/work-charged employees and those appointed/engaged on contract basis in various departments of the State Government, including the Nagar Panchayat up to 31.12.2001. In order to give effect to the said Government Order, or so to speak, the Government's Policy, Rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution were made by the Governor, called the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Persons Working on Daily Wages or On Work Charge or On Contract in Government Departments on Group “C” and Group “D” Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016 (for short, 'the Rules of 2016'). The petitioners say that in order to extend the benefit of regularization to employees of the Nagar Panchayat, the Director, Local Bodies, addressed communications to Nagar Panchayat across the State, asking them to submit requisite information in a prescribed proforma, regarding employees working on daily-wages etc. in their establishment. 4. The petitioners say that in order to extend the benefit of regularization to employees of the Nagar Panchayat, the Director, Local Bodies, addressed communications to Nagar Panchayat across the State, asking them to submit requisite information in a prescribed proforma, regarding employees working on daily-wages etc. in their establishment. 4. In compliance with the said communication, the Executive Officer of the Nagar Panchayat, by his communication dated 5.9.2017, forwarded the requisite information in the prescribed manner relating to the petitioners and other such employees, whose services could be regularized under the Rules of 2016. Some reminders are also said to have been sent by the Executive Officer to take necessary action relating to daily-wage employees of the Nagar Panchayat, after he found that in some adjoining Nagar Panchayat, the benefit of regularization had already been given. When neither the Government nor the Director of Local Bodies took any steps, the petitioners moved this Court by means of Writ-A No. 3491 of 2020, seeking enforcement of their right to regularization. This Court vide order dated 3.3.2020 disposed of Writ-A No. 3491 of 2020 in terms of the following orders: “Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent states that subject to verification of all facts and contentions on merits being kept open, the claim of the petitioners for regularisation shall be duly considered in accordance with law and the provisions made in the scheme which is stated to apply and a final decision in that respect communicated to the concerned Nagar Panchayat with expedition and preferably within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.” 5. The aforesaid direction was given to the Director of Local Bodies by this Court and when the matter came up before him, he rejected the petitioners' claim vide order dated 4.12.2020, holding that since the Executive Officer of the Nagar Panchayat had not put forward any demand for creation of supernumerary posts of Clerk, Tax Collector/Clerk, Pump Operator Grade-II, Chaprasi/Mali, Lineman, Safai Nayak and Safai Karmachari, no regularization can be ordered in the petitioners' favour. 6. The petitioners say that this order was manifestly illegal because the creation of a supernumerary post under the proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules of 2016 is a corollary of the petitioners' right to be considered for regularization under Rule 6. 6. The petitioners say that this order was manifestly illegal because the creation of a supernumerary post under the proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules of 2016 is a corollary of the petitioners' right to be considered for regularization under Rule 6. The petitioners, therefore, challenged the order dated 4.12.2020 before this Court by means of Writ-A No. 10908 of 2021. The aforesaid writ petition was heard and allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated the 28.10.2021, setting aside the order dated 4.12.2020 passed by the Director, Local Bodies with a remit of the matter to the Director/State Government for a fresh consideration bearing in mind the guidance in the order as well as Rule 5 of the Rules of 2016. It was also remarked by this Court that it was undisputed for a fact that the petitioners' engagement was prior to the cut-off date under the Rules of 2016 and continued on the date of issue of the notification, enforcing the Rules aforesaid. The following remarks of this Court in the judgment and order dated 28.10.2021, passed in Writ-A No. 10908 of 2021, spell out the essence of the parties' rights, now under consideration: “Though the order impugned records that no such request was made by the Nagar Panchayat concerned but pursuant to the orders passed on the previous occasion it is now admitted to the respondents, by way of instructions, that such request was made by the Nagar Panchayat to the State Government. The instruction nevertheless state that petitioners were actually engaged against specific posts and created without due authority and, therefore, the question of the creation of supernumerary posts does not arise. The stand taken by the respondents for justifying their action is absolutely in teeth of the rules and virtually frustrates the very object for which the rule itself has been notified. The object of notifying regularisation rules is to grant permanency to those employees in specified establishement who have continued for very long. The cut off date specified in the rules are 31.12.2001 and 12.9.2006 and, therefore, one who becomes entitled to regularised must have worked for this entire period except period of artificial break in service. The right of regularisation once is recognized the rules further contemplate that non availability of posts in such circumstances would not be a ground to deny consideration for regularisation. The right of regularisation once is recognized the rules further contemplate that non availability of posts in such circumstances would not be a ground to deny consideration for regularisation. In order to deal with such exigency Rule 5 provides for creation of supernumerary posts. It is admitted to respondents by way of instructions that such request had been made by the Nagar Panchayat to the State Government. Whether or not petitioners were appointed against any post created by Nagar Panchayat looses significance inasmuch as in the event it is found that their engagement was not against any post, duly sanctioned by the State, their claim for regularisation will have to be considered as per the Rules of 2016. Once petitioners fulfill necessary ingredients inasmuch as they were engaged prior to cut off date and were working on the date of issuance of the notification i.e. 12.9.2016, their claim shall be dealt with as per law. The order impugned cannot be sustained for the simple reason that an incorrect finding is recorded that no request for creating supernumerary posts was made by the Nagar Panchayat. Secondly, the respondents even after noticing the fact that such a request has been made have failed to act in terms of Rule 5 and pass necessary orders for creation of supernumerary posts. As consideration of petitioners' claim is found not to have been made in consonance with the Rules of 2016 as such the order passed by the Director dated 4.12.2020, cannot be sustained and is set aside. The matter stands remitted to the Director/State Government for fresh consideration of cause in light of the above observations, keeping in view Rule 5 of the Rules of 2016 and also the fact that petitioners' engagement prior to cut off date and even on the date of issuance of notification remains undisputed. Such consideration shall be made within a period of four months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order.” (Emphasis by Court) 7. The petitioners say that the order of this Court makes it pellucid that the petitioners' appointment/engagement as daily-wagers on or before the cut-off date, to wit, 31.12.2001 with the Nagar Panchayat and their continuance in service as such, until the date of enforcement of the Rules of 2016, are undisputed facts determined by the Court inter partes. The petitioners say that the order of this Court makes it pellucid that the petitioners' appointment/engagement as daily-wagers on or before the cut-off date, to wit, 31.12.2001 with the Nagar Panchayat and their continuance in service as such, until the date of enforcement of the Rules of 2016, are undisputed facts determined by the Court inter partes. It need be noticed that though the respondents were ordered by this Court on 28.10.2021 to consider the petitioners' case for regularization within a period of four months from the date of presentation of a copy of the order last mentioned, the respondents remained in breach. In the circumstances, the petitioners moved a Contempt Application (Civil) No. 2703 of 2022 before this Court. The petitioners say that upon issue of notice in the Contempt Application, a Special Secretary to the State Government in the Department of Urban Development, passed an order dated 31st October, 2022, rejecting their claim. 8. On occasion, the petitioners' claim was rejected on ground that neither copies of the petitioners' appointment letters nor certificates of their continuance in service on their respective posts were made available by the Executive Officer or the Directorate of Local Bodies. The petitioners challenged the order dated 31.10.2022 by means of Writ-A No. 4506 of 2023 before this Court. This Court, when Writ-A No. 4506 of 2023 came up for admission, passed an order dated 17.3.2023, while posting the petition on 12.4.2023: “The respondent No. 1/Special Secretary, Nagar Nikaya, has rejected the application of the petitioners for regularization on the ground that the documents were not provided by the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Haraiya and the Directorate of Nagar Nikaya. The impugned order is passed by the Special Secretary, Nagar Nikay, Government of U.P. under the directions of this Court requiring to decide the matter of regularization of the petitioners on merits. This order cannot be called an order on merits. The respondent No. 1/Special Secretary, Nagar Nikay of the State Government has sufficient power to summon the records as required. In the garb of the impugned order, he has only tried to hoodwink the directions of this Court which cannot be permitted. This order cannot be called an order on merits. The respondent No. 1/Special Secretary, Nagar Nikay of the State Government has sufficient power to summon the records as required. In the garb of the impugned order, he has only tried to hoodwink the directions of this Court which cannot be permitted. The respondent No. 1/Special Secretary, Nagar Nikaya, Government of U.P. is directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order on merits after summoning all the relevant documents from the Officers/Bodies on or before 12.4.2023 and file the same alongwith his personal affidavit before this Court on 12.4.2023. Sri Anand Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent/Nagar Panchayat assures the Court that the Nagar Panchayat shall forthwith forward all the documents to the Special Secretary, Nagar Nikaya, Lucknow.” 9. It is in compliance with the said order made by this Court on 17.3.2023, pending Writ-A No. 4506 of 2023, that the Principal Secretary, Local Bodies, has passed the impugned order dated 25th July, 2023, once again rejecting the petitioners' claim. 10. When this writ petition came up for admission, this Court found the impugned order so patently illegal prima facie that we passed the following order on 18.8.2023: “In the order dated 28.10.2021, while remitting the matter to the State Government for consideration of regularization in service, this Court, inter alia directed a guided consideration in the following terms: “The matter stands remitted to the Director/State Government for fresh consideration of cause in light of the above observations, keeping in view Rule 5 of the Rules of 2016 and also the fact that petitioners' engagement prior to cut off date and even on the date of issuance of notification remains undisputed.” (Emphasis by Court) Now, the Principal Secretary in the Department of Nagar Vikas, Lucknow has rejected the petitioner's case for regularization with a remark that their initial appointment was not in accordance with rules. This finding prima facie, is in violation of this Court's order dated 28.10.2021 passed in Writ A No. 10908 of 2021. The Principal Secretary, Nagar Vikas Anubhag-1, Government of U.P., Lucknow shall file his personal affidavit within a week explaining how he has concluded and written a finding prima facie in violation of this Court's order aforementioned. Lay this writ petition as fresh on 29.8.2023. The Principal Secretary, Nagar Vikas Anubhag-1, Government of U.P., Lucknow shall file his personal affidavit within a week explaining how he has concluded and written a finding prima facie in violation of this Court's order aforementioned. Lay this writ petition as fresh on 29.8.2023. Let this order be communicated to the Principal Secretary, Nagar Vikas Anubhag-1, Government of U.P., Lucknow by the Registrar (Compliance) by Monday i.e. 21.8.2023.” 11. In course of time, the Principal Secretary filed a personal affidavit dated 4.9.2023. A counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 dated 6.10.2023 was also filed. Another counter-affidavit dated 2.10.2023 was filed on behalf of the President of the Nagar Panchayat, whereas still another counter-affidavit dated 6.10.2023 was filed on behalf of the Executive Officer of the Nagar Panchayat. The petitioners filed a rejoinder dated 12.10.2023. Parties having exchanged affidavits, this petition was admitted to hearing on 10.10.2023. This matter was heard on 10.10.2023 and then on 12.10.2023, when judgment was reserved. 12. Heard Mr. Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anand Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and Ms. Monika Arya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. 13. This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 14. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Principal Secretary, who acted for the Government, in writing the order impugned, called for a clear report from the Director of Local Bodies vide a letter dated 10.4.2023, regarding the petitioners' eligibility for regularization under Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules of 2016. The impugned order records that the Director, Local Bodies by his letter dated 11.7.2023 forwarded a letter dated 7.7.2023 received from the District Magistrate, Basti. The Director pointed out that the petitioners are members of the Non-Centralised Service and their appointing authority would be the President or the Executive Officer of the Nagar Panchayat. The impugned order also records the fact that in deference to the directions of the Government, the Director had sought specific recommendations from the District Magistrate, Basti, and in response had received the letter dated 7.7.2023 and another dated 13.7.2023. The impugned order also records the fact that in deference to the directions of the Government, the Director had sought specific recommendations from the District Magistrate, Basti, and in response had received the letter dated 7.7.2023 and another dated 13.7.2023. These letters indicate that the District Magistrate had set up a three-member committee, who had submitted a well considered report, cast in specific terms, dated 5.7.2023, which chiefly said that going by Rules 6(3) and 7 of the Rules of 2016, the petitioners are not entitled to regularization. The report indicated that the petitioners were disentitled because they were not appointed at the time they were inducted in the Nagar Panchayat's service, after following the rules then in force. 15. It is also remarked in the impugned order that the District Magistrate had opined that the then Executive Officer of the Nagar Panchayat was guilty in the matter. The Director, Local Bodies had recommended that a decision may be taken, bearing in mind the report of the District Magistrate, Basti dated 7.7.2023. The impugned order then goes forward to consider the fact that out of the ten writ petitioners, who had moved Writ-A No. 10908 of 2021, one had parted ways with the nine others, to wit, Nityanand Singh and did not join them in Writ-A No. 4506 of 2023. Nityanand Singh had filed a separate writ petition against the Government Order dated 31.10.2021 and the Directorate's order dated 3.11.2022, being Writ-A No. 6717 of 2023. This writ petition was tagged with Writ-A No. 4506 of 2023 and directed to be listed alongwith it vide order dated 10.5.2023, which reads: “3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the direction passed by this Court in Writ (A) No. 10908 of 2021, Director, Local Bodies, U.P., Lucknow, Respondent No. 2 has proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner. It is also contended that similarly circumstanced persons such as the petitioner has approached this Court by filing Writ (A) No. 4506 of 2023 which writ petition has been entertained by this Court vide order dated 17.3.2023 making observations against the Respondent No. 2 as regards the manner in which the impugned order has been passed. He submits that the present writ petition may also be tagged alongwith Writ (A) No. 4506 of 2023. 4. He submits that the present writ petition may also be tagged alongwith Writ (A) No. 4506 of 2023. 4. Accordingly, connect and list this writ petition alongwith Writ (A) No. 4506 of 2023. 5. Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel representing the respondents, if so advised, may also file counter-affidavit in the present writ petition. 6. List this case on 18.7.2023 alongwith Writ (A) No. 4506 of 2023.” 16. The order impugned goes on to say that in compliance with the aforesaid order, a letter dated 14.7.2023 was issued by the Government to the Director, Local Bodies/the District Magistrate, Basti to submit a report regarding Nityanand Singh's claim in Writ-A No. 6717 of 2023, asking him to constitute a three-member committee for the purpose of examining his eligibility for regularization under the Rules of 2016. A specific recommendation in the matter was invited by the Government. In compliance, as the impugned order says, the Director, Local Bodies by his letter dated 24.7.2023 directed the District Magistrate, Basti to submit a report. The District Magistrate, Basti constituted a committee, comprising the Executive Officer of the Nagar Panchayat, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Basti Sadar and the Chief Treasury Officer, Basti. The said committee examined the claim of each of the petitioners involved in both the writ petitions and the impugned order carries a four column table: one mentioning the serial number, the other the petitioners' name, the third column describing the post to which and the manner followed to appoint a particular petitioner, including the resolution of the Board involved, and the fourth column mentioning the conclusions of the committee. 17. A perusal of all this columned exercise, carried in the impugned order, shows that the committee mostly found that the proposal to appoint each of the petitioners, was based on the recommendation of a selection committee, not constituted in accordance with Rules. The resolution of the Board was not approved by the Prescribed Authority in each of the cases. The the committee opined that the petitioners' initial appointment was not made in accordance with Sections 94(3) and 94(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 (for short, 'the Act of 1916'). The resolution of the Board was not approved by the Prescribed Authority in each of the cases. The the committee opined that the petitioners' initial appointment was not made in accordance with Sections 94(3) and 94(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 (for short, 'the Act of 1916'). The initial appointment was held by the Principal Secretary to be bad, on the basis of the Committee's report, and it is for this reason that he has denied the petitioners' entitlement to be regularized under Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules of 2016. 18. Section 94 of the Act of 1916 reads: “Section 94. The minute book and resolutions: (1) The names of the members present, and the proceedings held and resolutions passed, at a meeting of a Municipality shall be entered in a book to be called the minute book. (1A) The Executive Officer or where there is no Executive Officer, the Secretary of the Municipality shall maintain a register of attendance of members and every member shall sign it before taking his seat at any meeting of the Municipality. (2) The minutes shall be read out at the meeting or the next ensuing meeting and, unless objected to by a majority of such of the members, if any, present at the reading as were alsopresent at the proceedings recorded in such minutes, shall be certified as passed by the signature of the President of the meeting at which they are read. (3) Every resolution passed by a Municipality at a meeting, shall, as soon thereafter as may be, be published in Hindi in any paper approved by the State Government for purpose of publication of public notices, published in the district, or if there is no such paper, in the district, in the division, in which the municipality concerned is situate and where there is no such paper, be posted upon the notice boards of the municipal office and Collectorate Office for three consecutive days. (4) Copies of every resolution passed by a Municipality at a meeting shall, within ten days from the date of the meeting, be forwarded to the Prescribed Authority and the District Magistrate. (4) Copies of every resolution passed by a Municipality at a meeting shall, within ten days from the date of the meeting, be forwarded to the Prescribed Authority and the District Magistrate. (5) When, subsequent to action being taken in respect of any resolution under sub-section (3) or (4), but before the minutes recording the resolution are singed as required by sub-section (2), any alteration is made in the wording of such minutes, the alteration shall be notified by publication or communicated to the Prescribed Authority and the District Magistrate, as the case may be. (6) A resolution of a Municipality shall not be modified or cancelled within six months after the passing thereof: (a) unless previous notice has been given setting forth fully the resolution which it is proposed to modify or cancel and the motion or proposition for the modification or cancellation of such resolution. (b) except by a resolution supported by not less than, one half of the total number of members of the [Municipality] for the time being.” 19. A perusal of Section 94 of the Act of 1916 shows that the short title of the section says that it is about the minute book and resolutions. A reading of Section 94 shows that it speaks about the minute book and how and by whom it is to be maintained and the obligation to write out resolutions of the Board therein. There is also provision for maintenance of an attendance register for members. There is provision for reading out the minutes at the meeting or the next ensuing meeting and in what manner the recording of minutes is to be objected to and how it is to be certified. Sub-Section (3) mandates that every resolution passed by a Municipality, which would include a Nagar Panchayat at a meeting, shall be published in Hindi in any paper approved by the State Government for the purpose of publication or public notices published in the district. There is also a requirement that if there is no newspaper in the district or the division published, the posting of the resolution on the notice-board of the Municipal Office and the Collectorate for three consecutive days shall be undertaken. Copies of each of the resolutions passed by the Municipality within 10 days of the date of the meeting is mandated to be forwarded to the Prescribed Authority and the District Magistrate. Copies of each of the resolutions passed by the Municipality within 10 days of the date of the meeting is mandated to be forwarded to the Prescribed Authority and the District Magistrate. There is also a provision to the effect in sub-Section (5) that in the event of any subsequent action being taken about a matter, regarding which a resolution has been passed under sub-Section (3) or (4), but before the minutes recording the resolutions are signed by the President, altering any words in the minutes, these are required to be notified by publication or communicated to the District Magistrate and the Prescribed Authority. There is also a prohibition on the modification or cancellation of a resolution within six months after passing of the same, subject to the two exceptions mentioned in Clauses (a) and (b) of sub-Section (6) of Section 94. 20. The purport of Section 94 does not have any bearing whatsoever on the validity of the petitioners' initial retention in service. The fact that the Prescribed Authority did not approve the resolution, appointing the petitioners as daily-wagers etc. in the year 2000, would also not detract from the validity of those resolutions. Section 94 does not at all postulate any approval of the resolution of a Nagar Panchayat. It is just for the sanctity and accuracy of records that Section 94 makes detailed provision about the maintenance of the minute book, the record and publication of the resolutions of a Nagar Panchayat or a Nagar Palika. 21. The order passed by the Principal Secretary is also fundamentally flawed, because it proceeds on the assumption depending on the Collector's report that the petitioners' initial appointments were not validly made and that do not entitle them to regularization under the Rules of 2016. May be the petitioners were retained against particular posts, but they were never appointed. They were just engaged as daily-wagers, or some kind of employees, whose services were hired dehors the rules. The fact that some kind of an advertisement of the vacancy was there for the purpose of hiring employees that resulted in the petitioners' engagement and a resolution passed by the Board, are merely few steps of extra caution that the Nagar Panchayat Board took at the relevant time way back in the year 2000. The fact that some kind of an advertisement of the vacancy was there for the purpose of hiring employees that resulted in the petitioners' engagement and a resolution passed by the Board, are merely few steps of extra caution that the Nagar Panchayat Board took at the relevant time way back in the year 2000. The right to be regularized flows from the Rules of 2016 and it would be gainful to refer to the provisions of Rules 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Rules of 2016, which read: “4. Definitions - Unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context: (a) “Appointing Authority” in relation to a Group 'C or Group 'D' Post means the authority empowered to make appointment on such post under the relevant Service Rules or the executive instructions issued by the Government, as the case may be. (b) “Constitution” means the Constitution of India. (c) “Contract” means legally enforceable agreement between two or more parties with mutual obligations. (d) “Daily Wages” means a person who is engaged or employed or deployed on a casual work on day to day basis and whose wages/remuneration is calculated on the basis of the days he has worked. (e) “Governor” means the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. (f) “Government” means the State Government of Uttar Pradesh. (g) “Work Charge” means a person of temporary establishment or employed on the work of this nature, whose pay, for the time being, is charged directly on the work on which he is engaged. 5. Regularisation to be made on available vacant post.-Subject to the provisions of Rule 2, regularisation under these rules shall be done on available vacant post in a Government Department: Provided that if vacant post is not available then, as and when required, a supernumerary post may be created with the approval of the Government. 6. Regularisation: (1) Any person who: (i) was directly engaged or employed or deployed or working on daily wages or on work charge or on contract in a Government Department on Group 'C or Group 'D' post (outside the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) on or before December 31, 2001 and is still engaged or employed or deployed or working as such on the date of the commencement of these rules. (ii) possessed requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment for that post at the time of such engagement or employment or deployment on daily wages or on work charge or on contract, under the relevant service rules and, subject to the provisions of above mentioned Rules 2 and 5. Shall be considered for regular appointment on Group 'C' or Group 'D' post (outside the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available on the date of the commencement of these rules, on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or orders. (2) In making regular appointments under these rules, reservations for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and other categories, shall be made in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994, and the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993, as amended from time to time, and the orders of the Government in force at the time of regularisation under these rules. (3) For the purpose of sub-rule (1), the appointing authority shall constitute a Selection Committee in accordance with the relevant provisions of service rules. (4) The appointing authority shall, having regard to the provisions of sub-rule (1), prepare an eligibility list of the candidates, arranged in order of seniority as determined from the date of engagement or employment or deployment on daily wages, on work charge or on contract and, if two or more persons are engaged or employed or deployed together, from the order in which their names are arranged in the said engagement or employment or deployment order. The list shall be placed before the Selection Committee alongwith their character rolls and such other relevant records pertaining to them, as may be considered necessary to assess their suitability. (5) The Selection Committee shall consider the cases of the candidates on the basis of their records, referred to in sub-rule (4), and if it considers necessary, it may interview the candidates also to assess their suitability. (6) The Selection Committee shall prepare a list of selected candidates arranging their names in order of seniority and forward the same to the appointing authority. 7. (6) The Selection Committee shall prepare a list of selected candidates arranging their names in order of seniority and forward the same to the appointing authority. 7. Appointments - The appointing authority shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 make appointments from the list prepared under sub-rule (6) of the said rule, in the order in which their names stand in the list.” 22. The definition clause in Rule 4(d) clearly shows that there could be employees engaged on daily-wages and by definition these are persons engaged or employed or deployed on casual work on a day-to-day basis and whose wages are calculated on the basis of the days that they work. Likewise, the work charged employees have been separately defined under Rule 4(g) of the Rules of 2016. The right to be considered for regularization is governed by Rule 6, which makes it clear that the eligibility for consideration covers persons, who are directly engaged or employed or deployed or working on daily-wages or on work charged basis or on contract in a Government department on a Group-C and D posts, of course, falling outside the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission. Rule 6(1) further shows that the engagement of such daily-wagers etc. should have been made before December, 2001 and the person should still be engaged or employed on the date of commencement of the Rules of 2016. 23. The other requirement for regularization is possession of requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment to the post at the time the person was engaged or employed or deployed on daily basis. This Court while disposing of Writ-A No. 10908 of 2021 had recorded a finding that the petitioners' engagement is prior to the cut-off date and they are working on the date of issue of notification, that is to say, the commencement of the Rules of 2016. This finding was recorded as undisputed and final inter partes. The State Government have no business to dispute or go behind this finding. This finding was recorded as undisputed and final inter partes. The State Government have no business to dispute or go behind this finding. While disposing of Writ-A No. 10908 of 2021, my esteemed Brother Ashwani Kumar Mishra had remitted the matter to the Director/State Government for a fresh consideration bearing in mind the other observations of His Lordship, but with discretion of the Government bound by the finding regarding the fact of engagement before the cut-off date and the continuing engagement of the petitioners on the date of enforcement of the Rules of 2016. The Rules of 2016 do not at all envisage initial recruitment of the employee in accordance with Rules. They possibly cannot. The Rules of 2016 are about regularization in service. These are concerned with regularization in service of persons, who have been engaged in concerned departments, except those not covered by Rules, as mentioned in Rule 2 prior to the cut-off date and their engagement is continuing on the date of commencement of the rules. The only other relevant factor for the entitlement to regularization under these Rules is the possession of requisite qualifications, prescribed for regular appointment to the post on which regularization is claimed as on date when the person concerned was engaged. The prescribed qualifications envisaged under Rule 6(1)(ii) are, therefore, to be seen with reference to the day when the person who claims regularization was engaged by the Department or other Local Body concerned. 24. This Court has, therefore, not the slightest hesitation in holding that the Principal Secretary took into consideration absolutely irrelevant matters while discarding the petitioners' claim, particularly the fact that the petitioners were not appointed in accordance with rules, when they were initially engaged. To even think that initial engagement could be done in accordance with Rules, betrays abject lack of understanding on the respondents' part about what regularization in service means. Quite apart, even if adherence to some rules at the time of entry is relevant under some different set of rules, the Rules of 2016 are not remotely concerned about it. These rules are designed to regularize service of men, who were appointed on daily-wages or contract or hired as work charged employees. 25. Quite apart, even if adherence to some rules at the time of entry is relevant under some different set of rules, the Rules of 2016 are not remotely concerned about it. These rules are designed to regularize service of men, who were appointed on daily-wages or contract or hired as work charged employees. 25. Before parting with the matter, it must be added that both the Principal Secretary and the Director, Local Bodies, have entrusted the task of finding out the eligibility of the petitioners for regularization to the District Magistrate. This Court hardly need emphasize that the District Magistrate is nobody under the Act of 1916, or for that matter, the Rules of 2016 to be entrusted with that task. In fact, what must be acknowledged is that the right to appoint a person to a Group-C or D posts vests either in the Executive Officer or the President of the Nagar Panchayat. Since, however, in this case the matter has been entrusted thrice for regularization to the Director and the State Government by this Court, their orders on the issue of regularization would be like supervisory permissions. The formal order, in any case, would have to be issued differently in case of each of the petitioners, either by the Executive Officer of the Nagar Panchayat or the President, whoever be the competent appointing authority under the rules applicable to the class of posts, to which the individual petitioner seeking regularization belongs. 26. This Court must say without mincing words that the respondents in this case have shown an obdurate attitude, driving the petitioners to seek judicial redress, when plainly it is not called for. The repeat rejection of the petitioners' representation on different grounds shows uncalled for defiance to judicial orders. This is neither welcome not acceptable. If there is lack of understanding on the concerned respondents' part about principles of law applicable to subtle subjects, like regularization, the respondents are no less than the State Government and who have at their command the service of their Law Department. We reiterate that the Rules of 2016 hardly leave much to be done by the respondents and this Court would wish that now the respondents would consider the petitioners' case for regularization strictly in accordance with the Rules of 2016 and within the confines of the order dated 28.10.2021 passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 10908 of 2021. We reiterate that the Rules of 2016 hardly leave much to be done by the respondents and this Court would wish that now the respondents would consider the petitioners' case for regularization strictly in accordance with the Rules of 2016 and within the confines of the order dated 28.10.2021 passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 10908 of 2021. 27. For the reasons indicated above, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.7.2023 passed by the Principal Secretary, Urban Development, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow is hereby quashed. A mandamus is issued, ordering the Principal Secretary to pass fresh orders within a month of receipt of a copy of this judgment, bearing in mind the guidance here. 28. There shall be no order as to costs. 29. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow by the Registrar (Compliance).