Continuous service and eligibility under regularization rules outweigh technical qualification denials in determining employee rights.

1. Heard Sri Awadh Behari Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.J. Akhtar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. By the impugned order the claim of regularization of the petitioner as Class-IV employee has been declined solely on the footing that he does not possess the qualification of pump operator.

3. Petitioner was initially appointed as pump operator on 15.05.1995 in the respondent Nagar Palika Parishad, Kushinagar. The petitioner was appointed on Class-IV post, and has been discharging duties of different categories of Class-IV employees like Safai Nayak. The respondents in their counter affidavit as admitted to the fact that the petitioner is a Group-D employee engaged on contractual basis. According to the counter affidavit different kinds of duties were being discharged by the petitioner as per the work assigned to him by respondent no. 4. A Group-D employee has to perform different roles as per the direction of the employer.

4. Undisputedly the petitioner has been functioning continuously without interruption from the date of his appointment. He is a multi-purpose employee under the Group-D category.

5. Even as per the stand of the respondents Group D employees who are appointed on contract are multipurpose employees. The said class of employees can be detailed for a variety of jobs by the employer as per departmental needs. In fact the concept of multipurpose employees entails that the said pool of employees can perform multifarious tasks or sundry jobs and may not be restricted to a particular kind of work or only be confined to a specific duty. The said employees to cannot refuse to perform such duties as may be assigned by the employer.

6. The claim of the petitioner for regularisation is being made on the strength of rights vested in daily wage employees under the U.P. Regularisation of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work-charge or on Contract in Government on Group 'C' and Group 'D' Posts (Outside Purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016. The petitioner satisfies the criteria for regularisation as contemplated in the said Regularisation Rules, 2016 and is entitled for regularisation under the said Rules.

7. The counter affidavit discloses that minimum eligibility qualifications for being appointed as regular pump operator includes technical qualifications. As per the stand of the respondents the petitioner does not possess the aforesaid technical qualifications and hence cannot be regularized on the post of pump operator.

8. In case the petitioner does not possess the aforesaid qualifications he may not be appointed as a pump operator. However, this fact does not in any manner dilute his claim to be appointed on other posts in the Group-D category for which he is qualified. The eligibility of petitioner for regularisation on a Group-D post for which possesses the qualification has already been affirmed in the preceding part of the discussion. Moreover, the petitioner before this Court has unequivocally stated that he is prepared to join any post under the Group-D category and shall perform any other duties as may be assigned to him by the employer.

9. Continuance of the petitioner on the Group-D post attests the fact that the need of the department is perennial in nature. The respondents have admitted that there are vacant posts of Group-D employees under different categories.

10. The denial of regularisation by the impugned order by resorting to highly technical grounds is an unfair pract