Court No. - 40
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 1285 of 2020 Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Manu Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dharmendra Singh
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Order on C.M. Exemption Application No. 1 of 2020 The application seeking exemption from filing certified copies of the orders of the Tribunal is allowed.
The defect stands cured.
Let a regular number be given to this appeal.
Order on C.M.Delay Condonation Application No. 2 of 2020 An application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing this appeal.
For addressing the other application, we like to consider the merit of the case.
Order on Memo of Appeal
By this appeal, a challenge is made to the judgment dated 01.11.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellants.
It is the case, where the appellants challenged the orders dated 03.03.2017 and 08.03.2017 in a writ petition for denying regularization of service. The writ petition was dismissed not only in reference to the judgments of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and others v. Chhiddi & anotehr, 2015 (9) ADJ 218, but for the reasons that the petitioners were lacking the requisite qualification as on the date of first engagement.
Learned counsel submitted that the appellants were in possession of required qualification at the time of entering into service in the year 2000/2001 on the post of Tax Collector but ignoring the aforesaid, the regularization has been denied in reference to the instructions framed by the respondents in the year 2001. The petitioners' case was covered by the Rules of 2016 but taking it to be in consonance to the instruction of year 2001, the claim for regularization of service was denied. The judgment referred by learned Single Judge is not applicable to the facts of this case. The prayer is thus made to cause interference in the impugned judgment and direct the respondents for regularization of service of the appellant in reference to the Rules of 2016.
We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
A perusal of the order impugned before the learned Single Judge shows denial of regularization for the reasons that petitioners were not in possession of the required qualification at the time of entry into service. The appellants-petitioners were in fact, engaged on the post of Tube Well Operator (Pump Driver) and not as Tax Collector somewhere in the year 2000/2001.
We do not want to comment on the manner in which the petitioners were engaged otherwise it was a back door entry. The observation aforesaid may however be not taken adverse for any purpose as it has been made taking note of the fact given in the impugned order challenged before the learned Single Judge. The fact further remains that the writ petition was not dismissed only in reference to the judgment referred therein but for want of qualification of the post. One was to be in possession of required qualification at the time of entry into service, if seek regularization. Appellants -petitioners entered into service in the year 2000/2001 and documents relating to qualification have been submitted but petitioners have failed to refer to the relevant Rules to show that they were in possession of required qualification. It is more so when dismissal of the writ petition is not only in reference to the judgment referred therein but for want of required qualification. Thus, it was necessary for the petitioners-appellants to address the issue aforesaid while challenging the judgment.
Learned counsel for the appellants sought and granted time to bring rules to indicate possession of the required qualification at the time of entry into service. The Rules brought by the counsel for the appellants are the Uttar Pradesh Local Bodies Directorate Ministerial Services Rules, 1992 (in short “Rules of 1992”) and Group D Employees Service (U.P.) Rules 1985 (in short 'Rules of 1985”). In both the Rules, reference of the post of Tube Well Operator (Pump Driver) does not exist.
Learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants emphasis that Rules of 1985 pertains to all the posts in Group-D but it has not shown that the post of Tube Well Operator (Pump Driver) and also falls in Group-D and otherwise the Rules of 1992 referred by the appellants has no application to the aforesaid post rather for different posts. In absence of possession of required qualification at the time of initial appointment, the regularization could not have been sought even pursuant to the Rules of 2016.
Though the engagement of the appellants is of the year 2000/2001 but in absence of the required qualification, we find no reason to cause interference in the impugned order passed by the respondent so as the judgment assailed by the appellant.
The appeal thus fails and is dismissed.
We find no merit or justification for condonation of delay. Delay cannot be condoned on the ground that the petitioner could know about dismissal of the writ petition, when now all the informations are available on internet and one can access to find out date of the writ petition or its status and for that one is not required to contact the advocate to obtain the information in pending writ petition.
Thus we do not find justification in condonation of delay. Hence, the application is also dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.1.2021 Ashish Pd.