Regularization of employees with irregular appointments can be upheld when no fraud or misrepresentation exists.

JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Jay Prakash Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Malviya, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for State- respondents.

2. The counsel for the rival parties have made a joint statement that they do not propose to file any further affidavits thus with the consent of the parties, writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage.

3. The case of the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner being fully eligible and qualified in all respects, was appointed as a Forester/ Van Daroga, a Group 'C' post in the year 1991 in the Forest Department at Dehradun which is a part of State of Uttar Pradesh prior to U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000. It is also the case of the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner's candidature is/ was considered for regularization in terms of the Subordinate Forest (Deputy Rangers and Foresters) Service Rule, 1951 read with the provisions contained under Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment on Group 'C' Posts (Outside Purview of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998. The process for regularization stood commenced by the respondents and the writ petitioner was required to submit high school certificate and he appeared for physical walking test at Allahabad held on March, 2002. Thereafter on 26.03.2002, an order came to be passed by the respondents, regularizing the services of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner joined as a regular employee on 01.04.2002. However to the under surprise of the writ petitioner, an order came to be passed by the Conservator of Forest, Varanasi Division, Varanasi whereby the regularization of the writ petitioner was cancelled on 07.05.2003 on the ground that on the date of the engagement, the writ petitioner was aged about 16 years 8 months and 28 days since the date of the birth was 01.10.1974.

4. Questioning the said order, the writ petitioner preferred the present petition.

5. This this Court on 14.07.2023 proceeded to pass the following orders:

"Learned standing counsel is granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

Petitioner will have two weeks' time thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.

List in the 1st week of Sept. 2003.

Petitioner was engaged in January 1991 on daily wages in the Forest Department. It is contended that there are no rules for engagement/appointment on daily wage basis and that petitioner had not concealed his age. At that time, petitioner, was about 16 years of age. was about In view of decision in Putti Lal's case, the Regularisation Committee recommended the regularisation of petitioner on 26th March, 2002. Petitioner was regularised and he took over charge on 1.4.2002. Now a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why he should not be held entitled on the ground that he was minor on 29.5.2001-

The question to be considered in this case, is that whether a person, who was less than 18 years of age could be offered appointment/engagement on daily wages in January 1991 in the Forest Department and whether petitioner was guilty of concealing his age.

Until further orders, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue as regular employer and be paid salary regularly."

6. Post passing of the aforesaid orders, affidavits have been exchanged.

7. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has sought to argue that the entire exercise sought to be undertaken by the respondents culminating into passing of the order dated 07.05.2003 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law for the simple reason that it is not the case of the concealment, fraud or misrepresentation and further the writ petitioner was inducted in the m