Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prem Shankar Bajpai, learned counsel for the respondents.
By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 29.08.2018 passed by opposite party no.2, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition, whereby the claim of the petitioner for regularization on the post of Driver has been rejected. A further prayer is for a mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the petitioner on the basis of meeting held on 15.06.2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been working as a Driver on daily wage basis since 03.03.1998. It is also contended that there are two sanctioned posts of Driver of which against one post the petitioner is working. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in a meeting of the Abhikaran which was held on 15.06.2016 the case of the petitioner for regularization had also been considered as Agenda Item No.4 under the heading of "Other Items" wherein it was decided that as the petitioner is working as Driver on daily wage basis since March 1998 as such in terms of the Government Order dated 24.02.2016, the approval for regularization of the petitioner was granted. A copy of the said resolution has been filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. However, when the respondents failed to pass a final order on the regularization of the petitioner, he was constrained to file Writ Petition No.15128 of 2018 in re: Radha Krishna Saini vs. Matsya Palak Vikas Abhikaran and others and this Court vide order dated 24.05.2018, a copy of which is Annexure-8 to the writ petition, without entering into the merits of the case required the Chief Executive Officer of the Abhikaran to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner by means of a speaking and reasoned order. In pursuance thereof, the respondents have proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 29.09.2018 whereby the claim of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a perusal of the impugned order would indicate that after the meeting was held the Abhikaran had required the petitioner to produce his driving license and documents pertaining to his educational qualification. It is contended that the petitioner had given a transfer certificate indicating his qualification having been obtained from an Institution but when the said transfer certificate was sent for verification it came out from the verification report that the same is fake. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner had given a transfer certificate on 26.09.2016 and upon the same being sent for verification it came out from the letter of the District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur, dated 02.06.2017 that the petitioner has passed Class VIII in the year 1991 and his date of birth is 15.12.1970. It was also indicated in the impugned order that as the post of Driver is of dying cadre as such the case of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order itself indicates that the petitioner had given a transfer certificate on 26.09.2016 which has been verified by the office of District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur vide his letter dated 02.06.2017 wherein the educational qualification of the petitioner has been indicated as Class VIII and the date of birth has been indicated as 15.12.1970. So far as the other transfer certificate is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once the petitioner was having a genuine transfer certificate which has been verified by the District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur consequently there was no occasion for the petitioner to have submitted a fake transfer certificate. So far as the plea of dying cadre is concerned, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Abhikaran itself in its meeting dated 15.06.2016 had considered that two posts are available in the cadre against which the petitioner is working and as such there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to now do a volte face while proceeding to reject the case of the petitioner by means of the impugned order. It is thus contended that the impugned order dated 29.08.2018 be set-aside and the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in accordance with the relevant Government Orders and rules.
On the other hand, Sri Prem Shankar Bajpai, learned counsel for the respondents, contends that in the verification which was done by the department the earlier transfer certificate which was given by the petitioner was found to be fake and though the second transfer certificate has been verified as correct by the letter of the District Basic Education Officer Kanpur yet once the petitioner had submitted a fake transfer certificate as such there was some doubt pertaining to genuineness of the transfer certificate. It is also contended that the post of Driver is a dying cadre and as such there is no occasion for regularization of the petitioner.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From perusal of the records, it comes out that it is admitted by the respondents, as would be apparent from perusal of the meeting dated 15.06.2016, that the petitioner has been working since March 1998 on daily wage basis as Driver. The Abhikaran is also having two posts vacant of Driver. The claim of the petitioner, though approved in the said meeting dated 15.06.2016 for regularization, has been rejected on the ground that petitioner's earlier transfer certificate was not verified while the second transfer certificate has been verified by the letter of the District Basic Education Officer Kanpur. The fact of the matter remains that once the petitioner was having a genuine transfer certificate which in fact has been verified by the District Basic Education Officer Kanpur through its letter dated 02.06.2017 as indicated in the impugned order dated 29.08.2018, there would not have been any occasion for the petitioner himself to submit a fake transfer certificate. So far as the question of dying cadre is concerned, once the Abhikaran has itself taken a decision for regularization of services of the petitioner and admittedly the petitioner has been continuously working since March 1998, there would not be any occasion for Abhikaran to take such a plea of the post of driver being a dying cadre.
In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 29.08.2018, a copy of which is Annexure-9 to the writ petition, is quashed. Let the respondents consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in accordance with relevant rules and Government orders within a period of three months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.7.2021 A. Katiyar