Hon’ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the respondent No. 1 to transmit entire record of the case in hand before this Hon’ble Court and issue:

(a) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the column No. 4 of final seniority list dated 23.11.2007 passed by respondent No. 1.

(b) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to determine the seniority of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Rule 7 of U.P. Development Authorities Centralized Services Rules, 1985 by providing him the benefit of service rendered in Nagar Palika w.e.f. 11.1.1984.

(c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No. 1 to place the petitioner in final seniority list of 19.4.1996 between Sl. No. 212 and 213.

(d) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

(e) Award cost of the petition to the petitioner.”

3. My attention was invited to two orders dated 29th December, 1983 and the order dated 18th October, 1996. The order dated 29th December, 1983 is the order whereby the petitioner was appointed on the post of junior engineer in Nagar Palika on ad hoc basis in the regular pay scale. The petitioner while holding the post of junior engineer on ad hoc basis appears to have been transferred to Kanpur Development Authority in the same capacity, but the nature of petitioner’s services even after transfer remained ad hoc by the very nature of his initial appointment. The validity of such a transfer is not the subject matter of dispute, although, transfer of an ad hoc employee should not have been made.

4. From the perusal of record, it is seen that the petitioner was absorbed under Rule 37(2) of the U.P. Development Authorities Centralized Services Rules 1985. By order dated 18th October, 1996, the conditions of absorption set out in the order dated 18th October, 1996 clearly provide that the petitioner shall not be given any benefit of past services nor the services rendered in the Nagar Palika shall be counted towards seniority. It is also noteworthy that under Rule 37(2), the absorption of an employee from Palika Centralised Services cannot be made once it is forbidden under Section 5-A (2) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 .

5. This order of absorption to the extent of these conditions provided therein was not challenged by the petitioner at any point of time before the year 2006. In 2008, the petitioner while filing this writ petition has virtually assailed the aforesaid conditions of the absorption order on the premise of the scope of Section 5-A of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 read with Rule 7 of the U.P. Development Authorities Centralized Services Rules 1985. Section 5-A of the Act and Rule 7 of the Services Rules are reproduced below:

“Section 5-A. Creation of Centralised Services.—(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section 5 or in any other law for the time being in force, the State Government may at any time, by notification create one or more ‘Development Authorities Centralised Services for such posts, other than the posts mentioned in Sub-Section (1) of Section 59, as the State Government may deem fit, common to all the Development Authorities, and may prescribe the manner and conditions of recruitment to and the terms and conditions of service of person appointed to such service.

(2) Upon creation of a Development Authorities Centralised Service, a person serving on the posts included in such service immediately before such creation, not being a person governed by the U.P. Palika (Centralized) Services Rules,