By the Court.—This Special Appeal arises out of a judgment dated 17 October 2005 rendered by a learned Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21137 of 2003 that was filed by the respondents in this Special Appeal. This petition had been connected with Writ Petition No. 48322 of 2000 (Sanjay Kumar Srivastava v. Principal, Chief Conservator of Forest, U.P. Lucknow) and a number of other writ petitions. All the petitions have been decided by a common judgment and the decision in Sanjay Kumar Srivastava v. Principal, Chief Conservator of Forest, U.P. Lucknow, (2005) 3 UPLBEC 2527.

2. The writ petition was filed by two daily wage employees working in the Forest Department on a Group ‘D’ post for regularisation of their services under the provisions of the U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointment on Group ‘D’ Posts Rules, 2001 (the 2001 Rules). In the batch of writ petitions which were decided by the learned Judge, persons who were working on daily wage basis on Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ posts in the Forest Department in the State, had also sought regularisation under the 2001 Rules which relate to Group ‘D’ posts as also the U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointment on Group ‘C’ Posts (Outside the Purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998 (1998 Rules) which relate to Group ‘C’ posts.

3. While partly allowing the writ petitions, the learned Judge directed the State Government to reconsider the cases of all the writ petitioners for regularisation of their service by ignoring the artificial breaks in their engagements as also the minimum educational qualifications and the physical endurance requirements prescribed by the service Rules. Such petitioners, who were found eligible, were directed to be included in the merit list for being regularised on the existing vacancies or the vacancies which could arise in future in their respective Divisions. It was further directed that until then all the petitioners who were still working should be allowed to continue on daily wages and they should be paid the minimum of the pay scale in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others v. Putti Lal, (2003) 6 SCC 337.

4. The learned Judge, however, did not accept the contention of the writ petitioners that the Selection Committee was not constituted in accordance with the Lower Subordinate Forest Service Rules, 1980 (1980 Service Rules) or that there was any mala fides in the selection process for regularisation or there was any diversion of the vacancies.

5. The State Government has not challenged the direction issued by the learned Judge for ignoring the artificial breaks while considering the cases of the petitioners for regularisation. The challenge in this Special Appeal is to the directions issued by the learned Judge for ignoring the minimum educational qualifications and the physical endurance test prescribed by the 1980 Service Rules while considering the cases for regularisation of services and for payment of the minimum of the pay scale to the daily wage employees till their cases were considered.

6. It transpires that in the earlier round of litigation, a Division Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Putti Lal, 1998 (1) UPLBEC 313, allowed the Special Appeal that was filed against the order of a learned Judge directing regularisation of services of daily wage employees. The Division Bench directed the State Government to appoint a Committee to frame a scheme for regularisation/absorption of daily wage employees working in the Forest Department. The State Government, however, filed a Civil Appeal bearing No. 3634 of 1998 which was decided by the Supreme Court on 21 February 2002 and the decision is reported in Putti Lal (1). The Supreme Court, after noticing that the State Government had framed a set of Rules known as 2001 Rules for Group ‘D’ posts and the 1998 Rules