Back
2015 Supreme(All) 1042
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
(Lucknow Bench)
BEFORE : DR. DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA, J.
AJAY KUMAR MISRA AND OTHERS .....Petitioners
Versus
HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS .....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition (S/S) Nos. 5512, 5287 and 5288 of 2013, decided on 31st August, 2015)
Counsel :
Rajnish Kumar, Sandeep Dixit, Vijay Dixit and Y.S. Lohit for the Petitioner; C.S.C., Manish Kumar and Upendra Nath Mishra for the Respondents.
Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 14, 16 and 229—Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976—Rules 41, 45, 8—Appointment—Routine Grade Clerk (RGC)—Ad hoc service—Regularisation—Procedure—Submission of petitioners that thirteen persons, who were similarly situated have been given the benefit of regularization by High Court establishment, whereas they have been denied the same—Impugned order of regularization passed in strict compliance of the judgment dated 20.9.2011 as passed by the Division Bench—Ratio of aforesaid judgment of which benefit is sought by petitioners cannot be given after pronouncement of the verdict by larger Bench—Appointment under Rule 8 (a)(i) read with Rules 41 and 45 of 1976 Rules cannot be made without following process of advertisement and selection—Admittedly, before appointment of petitioners, who have been regularized pursuant to judgment of Division Bench, no advertisement was issued—Petitioners held not entitled for regularization as they have no enforceable right as their appointment is said to be bad—Plea of discrimination also ruled out. [Paras 32 to 56]
Result; Petitions Dismissed.
Hon’ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Heard Shri J.N. Mathur, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rajnish Kumar, Shri Sandeep Dixit assisted by Shri Vijay Dixit as well as Shri Y.S. Lohit, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Upendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.
2. As the lis involved in all the afore-captioned writ petitions is identical in nature, therefore, all have been clubbed, heard together and are being decided by a common order.
3. In the aforesaid writ petitions, petitioners initially had sought quashing of the order of rejection of joint representation dated 26.9.2011 vide Office Memorandum No. 9514/2012 dated 6.6.2012 as also the Office Memorandum dated 2.8.2013 and claimed regularisation/confirmation on the post of Routine Grade Clerk [in short referred to as “RGC”] with consequential benefits. Later on, through amendment they also sought quashing of the advertisement dated 19.7.2014 which was published to fill up the 70 posts of Routine Grade Clerk and 189+98 (backlog) posts of Assistant Review Officer.
4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners of Writ Petition No. 5287 (S/S) of 2013 were initially appointed on 10.7.2000 and 8.6.2001, on the post of Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistant/Routine Grade Clerk (RGC) on ad hoc basis in the establishment of High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, whereas petitioners of Writ Petition Nos. 5288 (S/S) of 2013 and 5512 (S/S) of 2013 were appointed on the same post in the year 2005 under the orders of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice issued in exercise of power under Rule 41 read with Rule 45 of the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 (in short referred to as ‘1976 Rules’).
5. According to Sri J.N.Mathur, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, one Abhishek Kumar was initially given ad hoc appointment, in January, 2001, on the post of RGC but later on, his services were regularised vide order dated 29.9.2001 passed by the Registrar General, Allahabad High Court. Therefore, similarly situated few petitioners, like Abhishek Kumar and others, preferred a representation, which according to the petitioner remained unattended and in the interregnum three more persons were appointed on the same post and their services were also regularized vide order dated 1.9.2004.
6. Elaborating his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that some persons, namely, Mrs. Nanda Priya, Sri Ashutosh Kumar Singh and Ms. Puja Srivastava were given regular appointment as RGC and on 1.9.2004, seven more persons were appointed on ad hoc basis on the post of RGC, namely, Sri Prahmeshwar Pandey, Sri Tej Singh, Sri Anand Pal Singh, Sri Ajit Kumar Srivastava, Sri Santosh Kumar Tewari, Sri Abhishek and Sri Sharad Kumar. The appointment of these persons was made with a rider that they will be regularized only if selected in the examination and test.
7. One Devendra Kumar Pandey questioned the appointment of the aforesaid seven persons and other persons, namely, Smt. Sushma Singh, Sri R.P. Patel, Sri Sandeep Kumar Ojha and Sri S.D. Goshwami and Sri V.T. Goshwami in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45922 of 2004; Devendra Kumar Pandey v. Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and others, before the Principal Seat at Allahabad, wherein an ad interim order dated 24.5.2005 was passed to the effect that appointment of the aforesaid persons (respondent Nos. 3 and 5 to 14 to the said writ petition) shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition and they will not be regularized or confirmed until disposal of the writ petition.
8. It appears that against the ad interim order dated 24.5.2005, a Special Appeal bearing No. 987 of 2006 was filed, which was disposed off providing therein that impugned interim order has become unworkable and, as such, the parties are allowed to proceed in accordance with law. Thereafter, the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 45922 of
