JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.
1. Petitioners, who claim to be working as Beldar in the Irrigation Department of the State of U.P. had set up a claim for being regularized in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Post Rules, 2001. The claim of the petitioners in that regard was considered by the Chief Engineer and the petitioners were regularized on the post of Tarbabu vide order dated 5th November, 2004. Under the said order of regularization it was provided that the petitioners would be required to obtain Telegraphic Certificate within a period of one year (reference-condition No. 5 of the regularization letter).
2. By means of the impugned order dated 10.6.2005, the regularization offered to the petitioners on the post of Tarbabu has been recalled and petitioners have been regularized on the post of Beldar.
3. The order dated 10.6.2005 is being challenged on the following grounds: (a) The order impugned has been passed without notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and (b) The time granted under the order of regularization as Tarbabu for obtaining Telegraphic Certificate has yet not expired and therefore the order canceling the regularization of the petitioners on the post of Tarbabu cannot be legally sustained.
4. In the opinion of the Court both the grounds raised by the petitioners are misconceived. So far as the first ground is concerned, it may be recorded that opportunity of hearing would not have altered the factual or the legal position in any manner in the facts, as are admitted on record. The petitioner admits that on the date of regularization they were not possessed of the Telegraphic Certificate, which is one of the essential qualification prescribed for appointment on the post of Tarbabu, under the Tarbabu Seva Niyamawali, 1954.
5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Aligarh Muslim University and Ors. v. Mansoor AH Khan etc.; has dealt with a similar situation and has held that where only one view is possible in the admitted facts, opportunity of hearing is an empty formality. For ready reference relevant para 23 reads as follows:
23. Chinnappa Reddy, J. in S.L Kapoor's case, laid two exceptions (at p. 395) namely, "if upon admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion was possible", then in such a case, the principle that breach of natural justice was in itself prejudice, would not apply. In other words, if no other conclusion was possible on admitted or indisputable facts, it is not necessary to quash the order which was passed in violation of natural justice. Of course, this being an exception, great care must be taken in applying this exception.
6. In view of the aforesaid, it is to be considered as to whether regularlzation on the post of Tarbabu could be offered to the petitioners, who were not possessed of the requisite minimum qualification for the post of Tarbabu under the U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Post Rules, 2001. Relevant part of the Rules of 2001 reads as follows:
4. Regularisation of daily wages appointments on Group 'D' Posts. -(1) Any person who-
(a) was directly appointed on daily wage basis on a Group 'D' post in the Government service before June 29.1991 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of these rules; and
(b) possessed requisite qualification prescribed for regular appointment for that post at the time of such appointment on daily wage basis under the relevant service rules, shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy, as may be available in Group 'D' post, on the date of commencement of these rules on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or orders.
7. From the aforesaid rule, it is apparent that regularization against a post can be offered to an employee only if he satisfies the following conditions:
(1) The employee concerned was continuously working as daily wage employee since prior to the cut of date i.e. 29th June, 1991 up to the date when U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Post Rules, 2001 were enforced i.e. 21st December, 2001.
(2) The employee concerned is possessed of all the prescribed minimum qualifications prescribed for regular appointment on the post under the relevant service rules.-
(3) There is a substantive vacancy available for such regularization.
8. In view of the aforesaid statutory rules of regularization, the petitioners have to satisfy that on the date they were offered regularization on the post of Tarbabu, they possessed of all the prescribed minimum qualification. Since admittedly on the relevant date when petitioners were offered regularization as Tarbabu, they were not possessed of one of the essential qualification namely certificate of Telegraphic Training. The petitioners could not have been regularized under the 2001 Rules on the post of Tarbabu. The orders of regularization issued in that regard in favour of the petitioners as such is patently illegal and is contrary to the rules. Such illegal orders do not confer any right upon the petitioners.
9. The condition imposed in the order of regularization to the effect that the petitioners may obtain Telegraphic Certificate within one year, is also without jurisdiction inasmuch as under Rules 2001, the appointing authority has not been conferred any power to relax the minimum essential qualifications or to grant time to the employee to obtain the said minimum qualification subsequently.
10. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the time granted for obtaining the Telegraphic Training Certificate has yet not expired, cannot come to the rescue of the petitioners inasmuch as qualifications are to be adjudged on the date regularization is offered.
11. Recalling of the order of regularization offered on the post of Tarbabu, in the facts of the present case, on the ground mentioned in the order cannot be faulted with.
12. If the petitioners have actually worked on the post of Tarbabu under earlier interim order of the Court for some time, they shall be entitled to their salary for the said period only in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ; Selvaraj v. Lt. Governor of Island, Port Blair and Ors. on the principal of quantum merit of salary. Respondents are accordingly directed to ensure payment of salary for the period the petitioners have actually worked as Tarbabu.
13. In such circumstances, the order passed by the authorities recalling the regularization offered to the petitioners on the post of Tarbabu and regularizing the petitioner on the post of Beldar cannot be interfered with.
14. Writ petition is dismissed.