Back
2019 Supreme(All) 1356
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, SAURABH LAVANIA, JJ.
Moinuddin And Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas – Respondent
Service Bench No.1303, 1304 of 2011
Decided on : 03-04-2019
For the Petitioner: Shobhit Mohan Shukla, Kshemendra Shukla, Adv.
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Akhilesh Kalra, Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Rishi Raj, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Rule 21-A of the U.P. Palika (Centralized) Services (Twenty First Amendment) Rules, 2003, should be strictly interpreted and applied in determining the eligibility for appointment and seniority of Assistant Engineers, and that the rule does not provide for automatic regularization from a retrospective date.
Headnote:
Regularization - Appointment of Assistant Engineers - U.P. Palika (Centralized) Services (Twenty First Amendment) Rules, 2003 - Rule 21-A - The judgment discusses the interpretation and application of Rule 21-A of the U.P. Palika (Centralized) Services (Twenty First Amendment) Rules, 2003, in the context of the regularization and seniority of Assistant Engineers. The court analyzes the legal provisions and their implications, particularly focusing on the eligibility for appointment, seniority, and the distinction between regular and adhoc appointments.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute over the regularization and seniority of Assistant Engineers in U.P. Palika (Centralized) Services. The respondents were initially appointed on an adhoc basis and subsequently sought regularization from an earlier date, which was contested by the petitioners who were appointed on a regular basis through the Public Service Commission.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal erred in granting regularization and seniority to the private respondents from an earlier date, contrary to the provisions of Rule 21-A. It held that the appointment under Rule 21-A should be treated as an appointment and not regularization, and the seniority should be determined based on the date of appointment after selection in accordance with the rule.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the interpretation and application of Rule 21-A of the U.P. Palika (Centralized) Services (Twenty First Amendment) Rules, 2003, in determining the eligibility for appointment, seniority, and the distinction between regular and adhoc appointments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the clear language of Rule 21-A, which provided for appointment and seniority from the date of appointment after selection. It emphasized that the rule did not provide for automatic regularization from a retrospective date and that the Tribunal had erred in granting such relief to the private respondents.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and nullified any actions taken pursuant to it, allowing the writ petitions filed by the petitioners.
JUDGMENT :
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Saurabh Lavania, J.
1. We have heard Shri J.N.Mathur and Shri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Dr. L.P.Mishra and Shri Asit Chaturverdi, learned counsel appearing for respondents.
2. These two writ petitions have been filed to challenge the judgment of the State Public Services Tribunal dated 14.09.2010. The common order of the Tribunal is under challenge in two writ petitions, thus were heard and decided by this order.
3. The case has a checkered history, thus. it would be gainful to narrate brief facts of the case relevant to the issues raised in these writ petitions.
4. The respondent employees and one petitioner were appointed as Assistant Engineer in U.P. Palika (Centralized) Services on adhoc basis by the order dated 22.03.1995. Their services were terminated by the official respondents by an order dated 24.03.1998. A challenge to the order of termination was made by maintaining writ petitions. They were clubbed and decided by this Court vide its order dated 19.12.2001. The order of termination was interfered on the ground that despite existence of the vacancies, the services of adhoc appointees have been terminated. A direction was given to consider the case of those employees for regularization.
5. The State preferred Special Leave Petition to challenge the order dated 19.12.2001 passed by this Court intervening in the order of termination. The Special Leave Petition therein was dismissed. The private respondents and one petitioner were reinstated in service.
6. After the judgment in the first litigation, referred above, the official respondents made amendment in the U.P. Palika (Centralized) Services (Twenty First Amendment) Rules, 2003 (in short 'Rules of 2003'). Rule 21-A was amended by the aforesaid,
7. The other facts relevant to the litigation is about the appointment of the petitioner on regular basis, after an advertisement by the U.P. Public Service Commission. The selection pursuant to the advertisement was conducted by the U.P. Public Service Commission. The petitioners remain successful, thus were appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer on regular basis by the order dated 12.04.1999 apart from other orders issued in the year 1999. The aforesaid is second set of facts relevant to the case and the controversy involved herein.
8. The employees governed by the first set of facts were considered for appointment pursuant to the Amended Rule 21-A of the Rules of 2003. After applying the procedure given therein, an order for regularization of services was issued on 21.02.2007. The respondents services were regularized from the date of the order. Accordingly, their seniority was fixed based on the date of appointment.
9. The private respondents challenged the order of the regularization before State Public Service Tribunal with a prayer to grant it from 30.06.1998, with consequential seniority. The claim petition preferred by the private respondents was disposed of by the Tribunal with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation made by the private respondents. In pursuance to the direction of the Tribunal, the representation of the private respondents was considered but rejected. They were not found entitled for regularization since 30.06.1998 and accordingly, they were rightly placed in seniority by taking the date of appointment of 21.02.2007.
10. Aggrieved by the order passed on the representation, reference petitions were preferred by the respondents before the Tribunal to seek regularization in service since 30.06.1998 and consequential benefits of seniority. The Tribunal accepted the claim petition.
11. In reference to the brief facts given above, a challenge to the order of the Tribunal has been made by those employees who were appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer after due selection by the Public Service Commission. The orders of appointment were issued from time to time in the year 1999. Out
