The instant writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 05.02.2018 passed by opposite party no.4. It is also prayed that a writ of mandamus may be issued directing the opposite parties to regularize the service of the petitioner on class-IV post as per the provisions of 2016 Rules.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was engaged as class-IV employees in Feb.2001 as daily wager in Forest Department in Ayodhya Region. It is further submitted that the State Government has framed the rules known as Uttar Pradesh Regularization of the Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract in Government Department in Group 'C' and Group 'D' Posts (Outside the purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016 for the purposes of providing provision to regularize the daily wage employees working in the Forest Department. It is further submitted that the petitioner was in service of the opposite parties since 2001 and as per the aforesaid rules the petitioner is fully covered for regularization as the petitioner was in service before the cut off date. The petitioner was working from more than 18 years and the services of the petitioner were found satisfactory. On earlier occasion petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.26462 (S/S) of 2017 before this Court and vide order dated 3.11.2017 the said writ petition was disposed of by the coordinate bench of this Court directing the opposite party to decide the representation in accordance with law within a period of three months. On the direction the petitioner has moved representation before opposite party no.3-Divisional Forest Officer, District Faizabad. The opposite party no.3 in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 3.11.2017 has decided the representation of the petitioner by passing a reasoned order after considering the entirety of the controversy. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the concerned authority has not considered the matter in accordance and without verifying the documents reached at the conclusion that the documents submitted by the petitioner were found forged.
Per contra learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-opposite parties vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the instant writ petition is hit by delay and laches. There is no sufficient and substantial reason given for condoning the delay in filing the writ petition. He further submitted that in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 3.11.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.26462 (S/S) of 2017, the department has constituted three member committee and the petitioner was called to appear before the committee and present his case. The department has given full opportunity to the petitioner to explain his case but he has failed to establish his case and after considering the submissions made before the committee and the record of the petitioner, committee reached at the conclusion that the documents submitted by the petitioner were found forged. On the report submitted by the committee, the impugned order has been passed by opposite party no.3. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference by this Court. The writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed.
Heard and perused the record.
While passing the impugned order the opposite party concluded as under:
vr% lfefr }kjk tkap esa layXud&2 lgh ugh ik;k x;k rFkk ;kph }kjk izLrqr izR;kosnu esa layXu lHkh izek.k i= QthZ ik;s x;s ftlls mlds dk;Z djus dh iqf"V ugh gksrh gSA ,oa og fofu;ferhdj.k gsrq ik= ugh ik;k x;kA fofu;ferhdj.k fu;ekoyh 2016 esa fuEu izkfo/kku gSA fdlh O;fDr dks tks fdlh ljdkjh foHkkx esa 31 fnlEcj 2001 dks ;k blls iwoZ lewg **x** ;k lewg **?k** ds in ¼m0 iz0 yksd lsok vk;ksx {ks= ds ckgj½ ij nSfud [email protected] dks dk;Z izHkkj ;k lafonk ij lh/ks yxk gqvk ;k fu;ksftr ;k vfHkfu;ksftr ;k dk;Z dj jgk gks] bl fu;ekoyh ds izkjEHk ds fnukad dks bl :i esa yxk gqvk ;k fu;ksftr ;k vfHkfu;ksftr dk;Z dj jgk gks] mlh ij mDr fofu;ferhdj.k fu;ekoyh ykxw gksxhA bl izdkj ;kph jktdqekj iq= jke vtksj fuoklh xzke Vdljk iks0 'kkgxat ftyk&QSTkkckn fofu;erhdj.k fu;ekoyh&2016 ds fu;e&6¼1½ ds vuqlkj fouh;erhdj.k gsrq ik= ugh ik;k x;k mi izHkkxh; oukf/kdkjh QSTkkckn ds i= la[;[email protected]&43 fnukad 19-01-2018 }kjk iszf"kr rhu lnL;h; lfefr dh vk[;k ls v/kksgLrk{kjh lger gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; y[kuÅ csap y[kuÅ }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 03-11-2017 esa fn, x;s funsZ'k ds leknj esa vkids izR;kosnu ij lE;d fopkjksijkar vkidks O;fDrxr lquok;h dk volj iznku djrs gq, ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds funsZ'k ds dze esa vkids }kjk izLrqr vfHkys[kksa o nkoksa dh rhu lnL;h; lfefr }kjk tkap dh x;h ftlesa vki Hkh mifLFkr jgsA vkidks lquok;h dk iw.kZ volj iznku fd;k x;kA vki }kjk izLrqr vfHkys[kksa dh tkap lfefr ls djk, tkus ij ;g fl} gqvk fd vki }kjk fjV ;kfpdk esa layXu fd, x;s vuqHko izek.k i= QthZ o dwV jfpr bl izdkj vki m0iz0 fofu;ferhdj.k fu;ekoyh 2016 ds fu;e&6¼1½ ds vuqlkj fouh;erhdj.k gsrq ik= ugh ik;s x;sA ,rn~ }kjk vkidk izR;kosnu fnukad 14-11-2017 dk fuLrkj.k fu;ekuqlkj fd;k tkrk gSA g0 viBuh;
¼Mk0 jfo dqekj flag½ izHkkxh; oukf/kdkjh ou izHkkx] QSTkkckn Since three member committee has been constituted by the department as well as several opportunity has been given for explaining his case and after verifying all documents pertaining to his engagement, the said committee reached at the conclusion that the documents which were submitted by the petitioner found forged and therefore the committee submitted the report before the opposite party no.2 and on the basis of said report impugned order has been passed.
In view of above, I do not find any illegality or error in the impugned order passed by opposite party no. 3 apparent on the face of record and further the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as the counsel for the petitioner has failed to given any satisfactory explanation regarding the same, therefore, no writ as prayed for can be issued in this writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.8.2019 Prajapati