Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 38332 of 2014 Petitioner :- Shahjad Alam Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mangala Prasad Rai,Anjani Kumar Rai,Nuruddin Khan,Parmatma Nand Ojha,Rakesh Kumar Gupta,Syed Shahnawaz Shah Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Akansha Sharma,Ashish Mishra,Manish Goyal
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This writ petition is directed against orders, dated 5.10.2012 and 29.9.2012 contained in Annexures 7 & 7-A to the writ petition; whereby petitioner's plea for being adjusted in the employment of District Judgeship, Faizabad on the post of Driver has been declined. A communication has also been issued by the Joint Registrar on behalf of the Court intimating the petitioner that in the absence of any vacant post it is not possible to adjust the petitioner.
Petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis as Driver in District Judgeship, Ballia, against a post of Driver created in the office of Fast Track Court. Pursuant to such order, dated 6.8.2002, petitioner joined and started working. It appears that after the post of Driver ceased to exist on account of discontinuance of Fast Track Court, the petitioner was adjusted in similar capacity at District Judgeship, Faizabad. Petitioner, however, has been discontinued on the ground that vacancy, on which petitioner was adjusted in similar capacity, itself ceased to exist, since certain previously terminated Drivers in the Judgeship at Faizabad filed writ petitions which came to be allowed and the vacancy was filled by such persons. Petitioner, in such circumstances, approached Lucknow Bench of this Court by filing petition Service Single No. 903 of 2012, which came to be disposed of on 18.7.2012. It appears that a subsequent application no. 149459 of 2019 was thereafter filed which has also been rejected vide order dated 20.10.2020. It is in this factual backdrop that petitioner contends that having worked for nine years without any complaint he ought to be continued in the employment of the Judgeship either in Faizabad or in any other Judgeship.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that by the very nature of petitioner's appointment, he acquired no right to be regularized under any rules and as the post of Driver in Fast Track Court itself stands abolished, as such, the petitioner cannot be continued any further.
I have heard Sri S.S. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the materials on record.
Facts admitted on record are that petitioner was engaged against the post of Driver created in the Fast Track Court. His engagement was against such vacancy on adhoc basis. In the year 2011, the Central Government had not extended continuance of Fast Track Court and, therefore, the post held by petitioner itself ceased to exist. It was in this backdrop that this Court allowed the petitioner to continue in the District Judgeship at Faizabad against a vacant post. The vacancy in that regard also ceased to exist after the writ petition filed by earlier terminated employee was allowed in Special Appeal No. 587 of 2011. It is admitted on record that there exist no post of Driver in the District Judgeship at Faizabad. The question of petitioner's continuance on adhoc basis thereafter would, therefore, not arise.
Law is settled that relief of regularization can be granted only in accordance with the rules framed for the purpose. [See: State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1].
Attention of the Court has not been invited to any statutory rule whereunder the petitioner has acquired right to be considered for regularization on account of his working from 6.8.2002 to 28.11.2011. There is otherwise no statutory rule which permits the petitioner's adhoc continuance to be absorbed against any other post. It is otherwise not shown that any transparent process of recruitment was followed before petitioner was initially appointed in the year 2002. In the absence of any provision which may allow the petitioner to be either absorbed or regularized, no relief can be granted once the adhoc vacancy has ceased to exist and there is otherwise no regular vacancy available with the court.
The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.1.2021 Ranjeet Sahu