VIVEK CHAUDHARY
Aditya Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. Thru Prin. Secy. Animal Husbandary Lucknow – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. The names of the petitioners were sent by the Employment Exchange for appointment in the year 1987. They faced Selection Committee and thereafter they were appointed on 20.2.1987 on the post of Investigator-cum-Computer in the department of Animal Husbandry. Petitioners have been working in the same department since their appointment. Their representation for regularization was rejected by order dated 16.2.2018. They filed the present writ petition in the year 2021 when they were in age group of 56-59 years i.e., nearing their superannuation. Meanwhile, petitioners no.3 and 4 have retired during pendency of the writ petition.
3. The aforesaid facts itself show that the petitioners have spent their entire life working in the respondent-department, but were never regularized. By impugned order dated 16.2.2018 their representation for regularization is rejected on the following grounds: (i) that they do not posses the required educational qualification for the post of Assistant Statistical Officer; (ii) that the petitioners were working on a fixed pay scale of Rs.10,000/-and were not da
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.