AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sunil Ambwani, J.
Heard Shri V.K. Singh, Senior Advocate for the petitioners. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the Staterespondents.
In Writ Petition No. 19356 of 1985, the petitioners were appointed as Clerks in the Treasury office at Meerut on adhoc basis for a period of three months on 19.2.1985, by a specially constituted Selection Committee. Their services were terminated on 15.12.1985. Before the termination of their services the petitioners approached this Court and filed the writ petition on 12.12.1985. By an order dated 18.12.1988 the Court directed the case to be put up for admission on 10.1.1986 and till then the services of petitioners were directed not to be terminated. After a few adjournments and extension of interim orders on 9.12.1988 the writ petition was admitted and the interim order was directed to continue.
In Writ Petition No. 19462 of 1985, the petitioners were appointed as Clerks in Treasury office at Meerut on adhoc basis for a period of three months on 4.10.1985 (petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3) and 5.10.1985 (petitioner No. 4) by a specially constituted Selection Committee. Their services were terminated on 16.12.1985. The petitioners approached this Court on 21.12.1985. By an order dated 21.12.1985 this Court passed an order directing the case to be put up for admission on 9.1.1986 and that till 9.1.1986 the services of petitioners may not be terminated. After a few extensions the writ petition was admitted on 9.12.1988 and the interim order was directed to continue.
A counter affidavit was filed in January, 1986 stating therein that petitioners were not appointed by duly constituted Selection Committee. The U.P. Subordinate Office Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules; 1975 were amended in 1979 and thereafter in 1985 and that after the amendments the selection could only be made by the District Selection Committee. It was stated that in the present case the District Selection Committee was not constituted. It is further stated that the petitioners did not disclose this fact to the Court that their services were terminated on 15.12.1985 and that on 16.12.1985 the duly selected candidates by the District Selection Committee had joined.
The writ petitions remained pending for a long time. It came to be heard after several adjournments on 1.7.2003 and was adjourned for the day. On 2.7.2003 learned Counsel for the petitioners stated that he wanted to confirm from the petitioners whether their services have been regularised. The matter was directed to be listed on 21.7.2003 for further hearing. Thereafter it disappeared from the list.
Today when the matter was taken up, once again Shri V.K. Singh learned Counsel for the petitioners states that he would like to confirm whether the petitioners are still continuing in service and have been regularised.
In the meantime petitioner No. 4Sanjiv Kumar Singh in Writ Petition No. 19356 of 1985 had died and a substitution application was filed in his place by his wife Sunita Singh. Paragraph4 of the affidavit filed in support of the substitution application shows that she wanted compassionate appointment under U.P. Recruitment of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 on her husband''s death. In this affidavit there is nothing to show that the petitioner No. 4 was regularised upto the year 2004.
It is apparent from the counter affidavit that the petitioners were not appointed by the District Selection Committee under the amended Rules. They were not appointed by making any advertisement. Their appointment orders have not been filed on record to show the nature of appointment. On their own averments they were appointed only for three months on adhoc basis. When the regularly selected candidates joined on 16.12.1985, the petitioners'' services were dispensed with on. 15.12.1985. Without disclosing the correct facts and the fact that the regular selections have taken place, and that their adhoc services were terminated by an order dated 16.12.1985 (Annexure CA1) the petitioners obtained interim orders and have continued for 22 years. The petitioners are not entitled to claim any benefit or right to continue any further of the services under interim orders of the Court.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners may have been regularised. If that be so and any right or cause survives, the petitioners will be at liberty to make appropriate application to the Court.
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions are dismissed. Any benefits drawn by the petitioners while working shall not be withdrawn from them. Petition dismissed.