Back
Rules Takes Effect From Date Of Appointment Order, Not Earlier
The has held that an employee regularised under the U.P. of Ad-Hoc Appointments (on Posts Outside the Purview of ) Rules, 1979 cannot claim that his be treated as effective from the date of his initial appointment or from the date on which he became eligible for . Under the scheme of the Rules, takes effect only from the date of the order of .
The Case: An Ad-Hoc Employee’s Long Wait
Dharmendra Kumar Vishwakarma was appointed as a Munshi on an basis on by the Deputy Director of , Chandrapuri, Sambhal. His appointment letter expressly stated that his service was purely temporary and could be terminated on one month’s notice. Despite this, he continued working, was placed at Serial No. 74 in a list of employees prepared on , and even received regular pay scales and benefits under the .
He was finally regularised on under the as amended by the (effective ). However, the was ordered only with effect from the date of the order——not from his initial appointment or from the date the amendment came into force. Aggrieved, Vishwakarma filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the order and a direction that his be to or, alternatively, to .
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Contentions
, counsel for the petitioner, argued that Vishwakarma satisfied all conditions under of the as amended in 2001: he was directly appointed on basis before , possessed the requisite qualifications at the time of appointment, and had completed three years of service. Therefore, his ought to have been granted from the date he became eligible () or, at the very least, from his initial appointment. Reliance was placed on judgments of the including , , , and .
State’s Response
The State, represented by Additional Chief Standing Counsel , countered that Vishwakarma’s appointment was made dehors the rules and was purely temporary. Under the , is not automatic upon meeting eligibility criteria; it depends on the availability of regular vacancies and the of the employee. The list prepared in 2001 placed Vishwakarma at Serial No. 74, and he was regularised only when his turn came in 2016. The State also pointed out that no junior to Vishwakarma had been regularised before him and relied on the decision in .
Legal Framework and Court’s Analysis
The
Justice Anish Kumar Gupta examined of the . lays down eligibility for : an appointee engaged before , with prescribed qualifications and three years’ service, “shall be considered for regular appointments in permanent or temporary vacancy, as may be available, on the basis of his record and suitability.” The rule mandates the appointing authority to constitute a , prepare an in order of , and have the Committee assess suitability. states that the appointing authority shall make appointments from the select list “in the order in which the names stand.” fixes only from the date of the after .
Why Antedating Is Not Permitted
The court held that the rules do not require all eligible candidates to be regularised simultaneously. occurs against available regular vacancies, and appointments are made as and when vacancies arise. Mere eligibility does not entitle an employee to automatic from an earlier date. Crucially, under is determined from the date of the order, not from the initial appointment. Therefore, granting with would be contrary to the scheme.
The court distinguished the judgments cited by the petitioner, noting they did not deal with the specific rules governing this case.
Key Observations
“The rules do not provide that all the candidates who are found eligible by the are to be given appointment at one go. They are to be given appointment against regular permanent vacancy only. Thus, as and when the vacancies so occur, such candidates are required to be regularized and their will depend from the date of the order of the appointment.”
“Thus, for all practical purposes regularization is required to be considered from the date of the in terms of the aforesaid .”
“In such view of the matter and after examining the scheme of regularization, this Court is of the considered view that regularization order cannot be given effect to prior to the date of order of regularization order.”
On the petitioner’s claim of “” based on Ramakant Tiwari (a similarly situated employee who was later regularised from an earlier date), the court rejected it, stating that even if another order existed, it could not be used to compel an illegal or inconsistent decision.
Verdict
The dismissed the writ petition, holding that Vishwakarma’s from was legally valid and that he was not entitled to have it . The decision reinforces the principle that under the , takes effect only from the date of the order, not from the date of initial engagement or eligibility. This clarifies the date of effect for thousands of similarly situated employees in Uttar Pradesh.
