The main legal point established in the judgment is that the G.O. dated 21.11.1995 mandated the regularization of services w.e.f. 01.10.1990 for ad hoc appointees in L.T. Grade prior to 01.10.1990, and the exceptions to the principle of delay and laches as established by the Supreme Court.

Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

1. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners are all working as Lecturers or Assistant Teachers (LT grade) in different Government Colleges in the State of Uttarakhand on their being appointed as ad hoc Lecturers/Teachers prior to 01.10.1990, and have continued in service ever since.

2. Proceedings dated 21.11.1995 was issued, in favour of persons working in the Uttarakhand area of the State of Uttar Pradesh, as an exceptional circumstance, resolving to regularize the services of those who were appointed as ad hoc lecturers/teachers prior to 01.10.1990. Shri Bhuwan Chandra Kandpal, whose services were also regularized in terms of the very same proceedings dated 21.11.1995, invoked the jurisdiction of this court claiming that he was entitled to be regularized w.e.f. 01.10.1990 in terms of the proceedings dated 21.11.1995.

3. A learned Single Judge of this Court considered this issue in great detail and, after referring to paragraphs no.1 and 4 of Government Order No. 3179/15-2-95-27(40)/93 dated 21.11.1995, held that these paragraphs of the G.O. left no doubt as to the fact that appointees of LT Grade on ad hoc basis prior to 01.10.1990 were regularized w.e.f. 01.10.1990, and no further orders were needed to be issued by the respondents regularizing the services of the petitioner from 31.12.1999.. The learned Single Judge rejected the contention, urged on behalf of the respondents, that, since no cut-off date was prescribed in the G.O. dated 21.11.1995, the petitioner’s services could not be treated to have been regularized w.e.f. 01.10.1990. The learned Single Judge observed that the opening sentences of paragraph no.4, of the G.O. dated 21.11.1995, would show that the intention of the G.O. was clear that the LT Grade teachers, who were appointed on an ad hoc basis prior to 01.10.1990, were required to be regularized in service w.e.f. 01.10.1990.

4. The learned Single Judge also observed that the last words of paragraph no.1 of the G.O. dated 21.11.1995 expressly stipulated that, by these proceedings, the services of such employees were being regularized; and, since the petitioner had been continuously serving in LT Grade right from 19.09.1990 till rejection of his representation, revising his seniority, vide order dated 17.01.2003, was bad in law. A mandamus was issued directing that the petitioner’s services be treated to have been regularized w.e.f. 01.10.1990, and the petitioner’s case for promotion was directed to be considered in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment. Aggrieved thereby, the State of Uttarakhand carried the matter in appeal (Special Appeal No. 28 of 2005).

5. A Division Bench of this Court, in Stay Application No. 5625 of 2005 in Special Appeal No.28 of 2005 dated 06.09.2005, observed that a careful reading of Annexure-II of the G.O. made it clear that the services of lecturers LT Grade, who were appointed on an ad hoc basis prior to 01.10.1990, were regularized w.e.f. 01.10.1990; there was no indication in Annexure-II of the G.O. to regularize the petitioner w.e.f. 01.10.1990 i.e. from the date of his appointment on an ad hoc basis; and, in the absence of any such indication or intention of the Government to regularize their services w.e.f. 01.10.1990, or from the date of said G.O., it had to be understood that regularization was granted only with effect from the date of Annexure-II of the G.O. dated 21.11.1995. The operation, of the impugned judgment, was stayed pending final disposal of the appeal; and the Division Bench observed that, subject to the final decision in the appeal, the services of the petitioner (Shri Bhuwan Chandra Kandpal) should be treated to have been regularized as an Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 21.11.1995.

6. Thereafter, Special Appeal No. 28 of 2005 was finally heard and a Division Bench of this Court, by its order dated 23.02.2006, confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge keeping in view the G.O. dated 21.11.1995 as a