JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Ram Naresh Shukla, Sri Indrajeet Shukla, learned counsels for the petitioners, Sri Ramesh Pandey, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.

2. In the leading Writ Petition No. 1639 (SB) of 2015 in re Dr. Sunita Sharma vs. State of U.P. and Another, following reference is made by the Division Bench vide order dated 16.10.2015 for consideration by the Larger Bench :

''(I) Whether the cut off date i.e. 30.6.1998 fixed under the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments (on posts outside the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 to adjudge the eligibility for regularization, can be ignored without strucking off from the Rules.''

3. Accordingly the reference so made is heard by this Bench.

4. The facts set up by the petitioner in the case of Dr. Sunita Sharma, are as follows:

Smt. Sunita Sharma was appointed as part-time Medical Officer vide appointment letter dated 23.12.1986, in pursuance of which she joined her duties on 1.1.1987. The petitioner continued to work up to 26.10.1990, when her services were not extended. Thereafter, the State Government issued a Government Order dated 1.10.1991 which provided that only those Medical Officers, who were appointed on part-time basis prior to 17.5.1990, shall be considered for adhoc appointment. The said Government Order further states that such part-time Medical Officers would be absorbed in various cadres and considered for regularization, at appropriate time, in consultation with the U.P. Public Service Commission. The date 17.5.1990, as mentioned in the Government Order dated 1.10.1991, was modified to 17.7.1991 by this Court by judgment dated 21.11.1996 in Writ Petition No. 3201 (S/B) of 1992 in Dr. Yogendra Singh vs. State of U.P. (The said judgment is referred to in detail, in later part of this judgment).

5. The petitioner thus, preferred a Writ Petition No. 5507 (S/B) of 1993 Smt. Sunita Sharma vs. State of U.P and Others before this Court, which was connected alongwith other similar writ petitions and by means of a common judgment and order dated 18.7.1996, this Court allowed the writ petitions with the following directions:

''In view of the aforesaid position, we issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to appoint the petitioners may be on ad-hoc basis, as Chikitsadhikari, in Government dispensaries, within the State, where posts have not been filled up, but as the posts are within the purview of Public Service Commission, they would be allowed to work only till persons regularly selected join the post or otherwise services of the petitioners are regularized.''

6. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the State Government preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 23.3.1998.

7. The Government, though delayed, but issued an order dated 9.7.1999, appointing the petitioner on ad-hoc basis, in compliance to the judgment passed in aforesaid bunch of writ petitions dated 18.7.1996 and, accordingly, the petitioner came to be appointed as an ad-hoc Medical Officer.

8. Subsequently, even after working for sufficiently long time, as her services were not regularized, she was constrained to file a Writ Petition No. 1276 (S/B) of 2010 in-re Dr. Sunita Sharma and Others vs. State of U.P. which was decided by the High Court vide order dated 8.9.2010, by directing the opposite parties to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law.

9. The petitioner in pursuance thereof preferred a representation for her regularization, but the same came to be rejected vide order dated 11.1.2012 by the opposite parties, by primarily contending that, as the petitioner has been appointed on ad-hoc basis subsequent to the cut-off date of 30.6.1998, as mentioned in the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointment (on posts within the purview of U.P. Public Service Commission), Rules 1979, as such, her claim cannot be considered for reg