JUDGMENT V.M. Sahai, J.
1. The question that arises in this writ petition is whether refusal to regularise on ad-hoc appointment of the petitioner was contrary to Regulations in 1985. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on 18.1.1983 on the post of Co-operative Supervisor on ad-hoc basis. The petitioner joined in January 1983 and the petitioner along with 45 other Cooperative Supervisors were terminated from service which was challenged in Writ Petition No. 6243 of 1985 in which termination order was stayed and the petitioner continued his service and the writ petition was allowed on 20.11.1992. The judgment dated 20.11.1992 was challenged by respondent No. 4 in Special Appeal No. 5 of 1993 which was decided on 7.8.1995 wherein the respondent No. 3 directed to consider the claim of petitioner for regular appointment. The claim of the regularisation was considered by the respondents and the petitioner's claim was rejected by order dated 8.1.1996 which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
2. 1 have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri H. N. Tripathi and Shri K. N. Mishra counsel appearing for respondents. To appreciate the controversy relevant part of Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments (on Posts within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board) Regulations, 1985 is quoted below :
"Regularisation of ad-hoc Appointment.---(1) Any employee who-
(i) was directly appointed on any post on ad-hoc basis in any Cooperative Society failing within the purview of the Board on or before May 1, 1983 and is contemning in service, as such on the date of commencement of these regulations :
(ii) possessed requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment at the time of such ad-hoc appointment ;
and
(iii) has completed or, as the case may be, after he has completed three years continuous service ;
shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant rules, regulations or orders."
3. The respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner by their order dated 8.1.1996 on the ground that the petitioner was appointed on 18.1.1983 and Regulations. 1985 came into force on 30.7.1985 and since on the date on which Regulations. 1985 came into force, the petitioner did not complete three years of service. The view taken by the respondents is based upon misreading of Regulation 4 (iii) of the Regulations. 5985 which provides that regularisation of ad-hoc appointment can be made after the employee has completed three years of service which clearly means that either the employee had completed three years of continuous service on the date when the Regulations came into force or even after coming in force of the rules where the employee subsequently completes the period of three years of continuous service on ad-hoc basis, he shall be entitled for regular appointment. The petitioner was appointed on 18.1.1983. The petitioner was terminated from service on 31.3.1985 and he continued in service in pursuance of the stay order passed in Writ Petition No. 6243 of 1985 and the writ petition was finally allowed on 20.11.1992. In special appeal, by judgment dated 7.8.1995, it was provided that the petitioner shall be treated to be in service on 30.5.1985 and further the petitioner continued in service as per stay order passed in Writ Petition No. 6243 of 1985 till 1992. Therefore, the petitioner has completed more than three years of continuous service and was entitled for regular appointment under Rule 4 (iii) of Regulations. 1985 and the impugned order dated 8.1.1996 which is based on total non-application of mind cannot be upheld.
4. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 8.1.1996 passed by respondent No. 1 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) is quashed. The respondents arc directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for regular appointment in the light of the observations made in the judgment within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before them.
5. There shall be no order as to costs.