The court ruled that arbitrary rejection of absorption applications based on age and literacy violates constitutional rights, mandating equal treatment for similarly situated employees.

JUDGMENT

Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Applications filed in Special Appeal Defective Nos.464 of 2023 and 484 of 2023

Learned counsel for the opposite party-petitioners states that he is not inclined to file any objection to the delay condonation application and he has no objection in case delay condonation applications are allowed.

2. For the reasons stated in affidavit filed in support of delay condonation applications, as the same constitutes sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing Special Appeals, the delay condonation applications are allowed. Both the appeals are treated to have been filed well within time.

Re: Memo of Special Appeals

3. Heard Sri. M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri. B.S. Pandey, Sri. Sundeep Agarwal and Sri. Siddharth Khare, learned counsels for the respondents-petitioners.

4. These Special Appeals under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 28.3.2023 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ A No.6069 of 2019 (Amar Nath and 3 others v. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., Lucknow and 4 others) connected with Writ A Nos.6084 of 2019 and 9211 of 2019. Hence they are being heard together and decided by a common order under the Rules of this Court.

Factual Background

5. The facts, which are emerging from the record in a nutshell, are that the petitioners were engaged as labourers in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. in 1988-89. They were working as muster roll Class-IV employees continuously but the Corporation retrenched 93 muster roll employees including all the petitioners. The State Electricity Service Commission had published an advertisement no.3 of 1998 to fill up backlog quota of SC/ST and OBC category against Class IV employee. The departmental letters were issued on 19.01.2001 and 21.01.2001 calling the petitioners to appear in the interview on 12.12.2002. Pursuant to the aforesaid letters, the petitioners had appeared in the interview on 12.12.2002. On the same date i.e. 12.12.2002 the Commission had released a list of 93 successful candidates, wherein the names of petitioners were not shown.

6. Similarly situated incumbent namely Om Prakash had filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.13402 of 2003 (Om Prakash v. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited) assailing the validity of the order/selection list dated 12.12.2002 and the same was allowed by learned Single Judge vide an order dated 08.01.2004. For ready referency relevant portion of the judgment is extracted as below:-

"8. I have considered the respective submissions. Before proceeding to discuss them. I find that Commission has not taken into account the fact that this was a recruitment by absorption of retrenched muster-roll employees falling in reserved category. The consideration made by the Commission in respect of age are wholly arbitrary and cannot be sustained. There is no age limit fixed for employment as a muster roll employee and that after rendering long period of service a muster roll employee cannot be denied absorption on the ground that they were no 18 years of age at the time when they were taken in employment on muster roll. Such a consideration is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. The first ground of rejection of some of the petitioners is, therefore, had to be invalid.

9. The second ground of rejection namely that some of the petitioner have attained the age of 37 years is also not sustainable, in Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. G. Mohammed Ammenuddeen and Ors. 1999 (3) SSC 2439 Supreme Court was considering the absorption of retrenchment of Census Organisation, where the respondents allowed only three years relaxation in age. A direction was issued by the Supreme Court to the State Government to modify the scheme with regard to exclusion of three years from the age. In case where the r