JUDGMENT :

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed seeking following relief:

“(i) To issue writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 06.04.1998 passed by respondent No. 1 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition).”

2. This Court has passed an order on 25.07.2022 which is extracted herein-below:

“The petitioner was terminated from the post of Driver on the ground that he had not passed High-School Examination as provided under the relevant Advertisement/Rules.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that the petitioner had not passed High-School Examination and was only passed upto Class-IX. The impugned termination order has been challenged before this Court by way of filing the present writ petition. In the year 1998, interim order was passed, whereby the impugned termination order was stayed and since then, the petitioner is working, i.e. almost 25 years under the interim order. Presently, the petitioner is aged about 55 years old and age of superannuation is 60 years. During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has passed High-School Examination in the year 2001.

In these circumstances, considering that the petitioner has already served more than 25 years of service of which, 24 years are under the interim order, therefore, at this stage if any adverse order is passed, it would prejudice the petitioner as well his family.

Therefore, being a welfare State, the respondents are directed to obtain fresh instructions that in peculiar facts and circumstances of case, that during pendency of this writ petition, petitioner has qualified High-School Examination (essential qualification) and has already worked for more than 25 years (about 24 years under interim order) and that he is presently 55 years old therefore whether the petitioner may be continue to work till he attains the age of superannuation.

List after two weeks.”

3. Ms. Bushra Maryam, learned counsel for High Court submits that since the petitioner has not been regularised or granted other service benefits, this matter be heard on merits. In these circumstances, I heard Sri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Prateek Srivastava, for the petitioner.

4. Learned Senior Counsel submits that at the time of appointment in the year 1997, the petitioner has passed class 8th, however, he was failed in high school. Still the concerned authority in the Judgeship at Hamirpur appointed the petitioner on ad-hoc basis as driver on 08.05.1997.

5. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that high school was not an eligible qualification and different Judgeships have adopted different criteria to appoint drivers. The petitioner has not committed any fraud. He has submitted his mark sheet of class 10th (fail) and therefore the respondents, only after considering the petitioner to be eligible, appointed the petitioner as driver. No notice was issued to the petitioner before the impugned order of termination. The petitioner has already worked for 25 years under the interim order, therefore, equity is also in his favour.

6. Learned Senior Counsel has also pointed out that Rule 11 of the U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules 1955”) provides junior high school or equivalent examination to be essential qualification and not the high school, though petitioner has passed class 10th during the pendency of the writ petition. Learned Senior Counsel has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. M.S. Mudhol vs. Shri S.D. Halegkar, 1993 (3) SCC 591 and submitted that in case the employee is continued to hold a post for a very long period, it would be inadvisable to disturb him from the said post at the late stage particularly when he was not at fault when his selection was made.

7. Ms. Bushra Maryam, learned counsel for High Court has pointed out that the advertisement in pursuance of which the petitioner applied clearly describ