IMPORTANT POINT
Regularization can only be granted in accordance with the law, and the lack of transparent procedure in the appointment of employees may result in their disentitlement to regularization.

JUDGMENT :

1. Learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioners against their discontinuance as Clerks in the Fast Track Courts, established at District Ghazipur in Uttar Pradesh on 5.8.2022. Thus aggrieved, the appellants have preferred these appeals.

2. It is not in issue that fast track courts were created in different districts of the State of Uttar Pradesh. According to the appellant-petitioners, there existed no procedure for making appointment of ministerial staff in such fast track courts, and therefore a circular came to be issued by the Registrar General of this Court on 25.7.2001, which permitted the District Judges to make ad-hoc appointments for specified period, as internal arrangement, for such courts. Clause-III of the circular, which is relied upon, reads as under:-

“III. Where the retired employees are not available or they are otherwise incapable to perform the duties assigned to them, District Judges may proceed to make ad-hoc appointments for specified period and may make internal arrangement by providing experienced personnel to these Fast Track Courts and these ad-hoc appointees may be posted in other courts so as to make these courts more effective and functional.”

3. According to the appellants, it is by invoking the authority indicated in the aforesaid circular that all the appellants were appointed on different dates in the year 2001. The appellants also rely upon a subsequent circular issued by the High Court on 15.4.2005 for rehabilitation of Class-III and Class-IV Ex-employees of the abolished fast track courts in various judgeship of the State. According to the appellants, it was pursuant to these circulars that the appellants came to be continued in the employment. It appears that appellants continued in employment till a report came to be submitted by the concerned Administrative Judge, who noticed that appointments were made without following any procedure, and therefore, there existed no selection in the eyes of law. The recommendation of the Administrative Judge, dated 6.11.2006, which is part of the record of the appeal, is extracted hereinafter:-

“Record of other incumbents have also been called for. No process of selection had been undertaken and everything has been dealt with as it was homely affair. No credibility can be attached to the same. Selections/Appointments in subordinate courts are governed by Subordinate Civil Court Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 and U.P. Rules for Recruitment of Ministerial staff of the Subordinate Offices in U.P. Rules, 1950, Qua other incumbents also record has been seen. In fact, there is no selection in the eyes of law. District Judge is directed to take appropriate action qua other incumbents who have been appointed without any advertisement and without following due procedure of law, by issuing show cause notice, and thereafter taking follow up action, within next two months.”

4. It is on account of such recommendation of the Administrative Judge that the District Judge, Ghazipur discontinued the engagement of the appellants w.e.f. 16.1.2008. Aggrieved by this order the appellants filed writ petition, which has ultimately been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge has noticed the fact that appointment of appellants was without following any procedure stipulated in law and that subsequent order of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.156 of 2022 (Sunil Kumar Shukla and others Vs. Rajeev Shukla and others) also did not come to the rescue of the appellants.

5. The aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court has been heavily relied upon by the appellants, wherein the Court took note of the fact that engagement of appellants was dispensed w.e.f. 19.3.2018. The Supreme Court enquired as to whether any rules or regulations have been framed for regularization in respect of such employees. Attention of the Court was invited to provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Class-III and Class-IV Employees o