Keshav Tripathi and Others vs District Judge, Faizabad and Others

N.K. Mehrotra, J.—In all the aforesaid four writ petitions, the advertisement No.102/18Faizabad dated 26.4.2000 has been challenged by which applications were invited by filing up the vacant post of Class III employees in Civil Court, Faizabad. The maximum age limit was prescribed as 32 years for general category and relaxation was given to the reserved category candidates as per different orders of the Government issued from time to time. In writ petition 2947 (S/S) of 2000 and 2688 (S/S) of 2000, this advertisement was challenged on the ground that the maximum age limit was enhanced by the Government from 32 years to 35 years for general category candidates by making amendment in Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Service (Age Limit) Rules, 1972 by 9th Amendment on 21.1.2000.

The contention of the opposite parties in these two writ petitions is that in the Rules known as U.P. Civil Court Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947, the upper age limit was 32 years and it was not amended by the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Service (Age Limit) (9th Amendment) Rules, 2000. It has been pleaded by the opposite parties that till the date of issuance of the advertisement, the High Court had not consented for enhancement of the upper limit in the age and the High Court has superintendence and control over the staff of the Civil Court under Article 235 of the Constitution of India. It was also pleaded that unless the U.P. Civil Court Ministerial Establishment Rules are amended after consultation with the High Court, the upper age limit for the recruitment on the post of Ministerial cadre in the Civil Court shall be the same as is given under those Rules.

Writ Petition No.2291 (S/S) of 2000 was filed by Keshav Tripathi and nine other ad hoc employees working in the Civil Court at Faizabad. It is admitted case of the parties that the petitioners Nos.1 and 3 were working on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 12.8.1997 and the petitioner No.2, 4 to 10 were working without any break w.e.f. 1.9.1997. They claimed regularization under the Regularisation Scheme framed under the orders of the High Court in the year 1993 in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Pyara Singh AIR 1992 SC 2130, as the services of the three stenographers and 16 copyist were also regularized in accordance with the scheme.

The petitioners of these two writ petitions also claimed their regularization under Rule 4 of the U.P. Regularisation of ad hoc appointments amended by notification dated 20.12.2001 and adopted by the High Court by Circular letter dated 8.5.2002 as contained in Annexure No.5 in writ petition No.3137 (S/S) of 2003. The services of the petitioners of these two writ petitions were dispensed with by the District Judge vide order dated 31.3.2000. This order was challenged in writ petition 2291 (S/S) of 2000 and this Court had granted stay against the order by which the petitioners were ceased to work. In spite of the stay order by this Court, the District Judge passed another order dated 24.5.2003 by which the services of the petitioners were ceased from 1.6.2003. Therefore, another writ petition No.3137 (S/S) of 2003 was filed. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners challenged their ceasure and the aforesaid advertisement for new recruitment before their regularization under the Regularisation Rules, referred to above.

It appears from the different documents on record that 16 ad hoc copyist like the petitioners and three ad hoc stenographers were regularized by the District Judge in the year 1993 by making a policy under the orders of the High Court in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the State of Haryana v. Pyara Singh. Three conditions imposed for the regularization were as follows:

�(i) The employee must have completed more than one year against the substantive vacancy.

(ii) His conduct and character must be good; and

(iii) He is fit in all respects to hold that post.

No reason has been given by the District Judge for not considering the petitioners in view of the earlier guidelines given by the High Court in the year 1993. Prima facie, it appears that the petitioners were entitled for regularization under these guidelines framed under the directions of the High Court. Therefore, the earlier order of ceasure of petitioners dated 31.3.2000 without considering the regularization of the petitioners was bad.

The second order of ceasure of the petitioners impugned in writ petition No.3137 (S/S) of 2003 was admittedly in violation of the earlier order of this Court in writ petition No.2291 (S/S) of 2000 and therefore this order was also bad.

Admittedly, the petitioners of writ petition Nos.3137 (S/S) of 2003 and 2291 (S/S) of 2000 are ad hoc employees working the Civil Court, Faizabad on Class III post since August and September, 1997. They have been working continuously without any break by the orders of the District Judge from time to time and later on by the order of this Court in writ petition No.2291 (S/S) of 2000. They have put in 8 years of service continuously without any break. There is nothing adverse against him. They are entitled for regularization under the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of ad hoc Appointments (on Posts outside the purview of the Public Service Commission) (IIIrd Amendment) Rules, 2001 which was enforced on 20.12.2001. These amended Rules were adopted by the High Court Circular letter No.18/VIII (b)104 Admin (D) SCC dated 8.5.2002 as contained in Annexure No.5 to the writ petition.

Therefore, all the petitioners of writ petition Nos.3137 (S/S) of 2003 and 2291 (S/S) of 2000 are entitled for regularization against the vacant substantive post in Civil Court at Faizabad under the U.P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments Rules, 2001. The cut of date under the Rules is 30.6.1998 while the petitioners are working since August/September, 1997, continuously.

In view of the above, the impugned orders of ceasure of the petitioners from the services dated 31.3.2000 and 24.5.2003 are quashed. The impugned advertisement dated 26.4.2000 which has been issued without considering the regularization of the petitioners is also quashed with the direction that before issuing any further advertisement, the petitioners shall be considered for regularization in accordance with the U.P. Government Regularisation of Adhoc Appointments Rules, 2001 and the fresh advertisement can be issued for filing up the rest of the posts in the Ministerial Cadre of Civil Court, Faizabad.

So far as the other two writ petitions Nos.2947 (S/S) of 2000 and 2688 (S/S) of 2000 are concerned, both these writ petitions are also disposed of with the direction that at the time of issuing the fresh advertisement for remaining post after considering the regularization of ad hoc employees, shall be issued in accordance with the amended upper age limit in U.P. Subordinate Civil Court Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947. It will be pertinent to note that U.P. Subordinate Civil Court Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 have been amended by U.P. Govt. Notification No.1104/VII201TSG2001 dated 13.9.2001 corrected by notification No.222/SatNyay, 2/200275G/2001 dated 22.3.2002 in consultation with High Court and now upper age limit is 35 years like other government services. At the time of issuing the fresh advertisement, the District Judge may provide that the applications received in pursuance of the impugned advertisement, shall also be considered and those applicants need not apply again who have earlier applied in pursuance of the advertisement dated 26.4.2000 if the record of those applicants is still intact and applications have not been weeded out.

With the aforesaid observations, all the four writ petitions are disposed of finally with the direction that the District Judge shall consider the regularization of the petitioners of writ petition Nos.2291 (S/S) of 2000 and 3137 (S/S) of 2003 under the aforesaid regularization Rules expeditiously say within three months and after regularization, the remaining vacancies shall be recalculated and advertised for selection. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to the District Judge, Faizabad by the Registrar, at once.

(Ordered accordingly)