Rajesh Chandra Kukreti and Another vs District Judge and Another

This special appeal questions the legality of the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 02.08.2010, whereby the claim of the appellants for their regularisation and continuance as Class-III employees in the District Judgeship of Moradabad has been rejected.

The learned Single Judge has held that the appellants, even though had challenged their discontinuance under the order dated 21.2.1992 passed by the District Judge, Moradabad in the year 1992 itself, no interim orders were granted, and even otherwise the appellants do not come within the purview of Regularisation Rules. It was further held that an ad hoc appointee has no right to the post, hence the relief claimed was declined.

Sri Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Single Judge has committed an error by rejecting the claim of the appellants inasmuch as juniors to the appellants have been extended the benefit of regularisation and a former Administrative Judge of District Judgeship Moradabad, vide order dated 12.10.1990 had extended such benefits. He further submits that under the Government Order dated 29.7.1985 read with the 1979 Regularisation Rules, the appellants are entitled for regularisation, as they had worked for a period of more than three years and hence, the judgment of the learned Single Judge be set aside and the relief claimed by the appellants be granted.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent-District Judge, Moradabad, contends that there are no rules for regularisation applicable and even otherwise the claim of the appellants cannot be accepted as their appointment was found to be not in accordance with the rules. He further submits that the order dated 21.02.1992 passed by the District Judge, which was impugned in the writ petition, clearly recites that eight other employees, who were allowed to continue, were working on the strength of the interim orders passed by the High Court and hence, their services could not be terminated. In view of this, the appellants, who have no stay orders in their favour, cannot claim any parity with those employees.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the provisions of the U.P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointees (On Posts outside the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, as amended upto date, do not, in any way, come to the aid of the appellants. The appellants were neither working on the date when the benefits of regularisation were extended and even otherwise, the appellants have failed to show that they were working against any sanctioned posts created by the State Government as alleged, under the Government Order 1985 referred to hereinabove. The plea of discrimination as alleged by the appellants also cannot be accepted as the District Judge had found that those, who were allowed to work, were continuing on the strength of the interim orders passed by this Court.

Apart from this, no other rule could be demonstrated by the appellants under which, they could claim regularisation. Thus, neither the appellants were working against any sanctioned posts, which could be regularised, nor any regularisation rules were available to extend the benefit claimed by the appellants.

In view of the aforesaid position that emerges from the pleadings as on record, no error could be pointed out so as to interfere with the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Special Appeal is dismissed.

For orders, see order of date passed on separate sheets.