AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner was appointed as Apprentice Clerk in the office Sub Divisional Officer, Electricity Distribution Division, Karanprayag, District Chamoli
with effect from 01.12.1984 to 30.11.1985. Again, petitioner was appointed on leave vacancy and thereafter, He was allowed to work till 1992. In
1993, respondent Department refused to take work from the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 25893 of 1993 before
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court vide order dated 05.05.1983 disposed of the writ petition directing the
respondent that if the petitioner has completed training of apprenticeship under their supervision, he should be permitted to appear before the Selection
Committee wherever the vacancy is caused and should be given priority in the matter of appointment on the basis of seniority amongst apprentice
trainees completing their training in the trade in which the petitioner is seeking appointment. Respondent Department did not comply with the order
passed by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, consequently, petitioner filed a contempt petition. In 1997, respondent Department issued an
advertisement inviting applications from candidates, who have successfully completed apprentice training for the purpose of appointment. Petitioner
also sent the relevant documents but nothing was done regarding selection.Â
In 2000, State of Uttarakhand was created and in 2001 respondent Department came into existence. In 2004, post of Data Entry Operator was
advertised but petitioner was failed to get appointment as he was not eligible. Again, on 09.02.2014, an advertisement was issued to fill up the backlog
posts of Office Assistant.Â
Petitioner is working with respondent Department as Assistant through UPNAL since 2011. In 2011, petitioner had filed WPSS No. 1838 of 2011
before this Court. In the writ petition, respondent Department had filed counter affidavit. In paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit, it was specifically
stated that petitioner would be considered for the post of Grade III whenever Government would permit the Corporation to fill up the vacancy of Class
III. This writ petition was disposed of this by Court by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner towards regularization against
the available vacancy as per law.Â
In compliance of the Court’s order, petitioner considered the representation of the petitioner and rejected the case of petitioner for
regularization. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has again approached this Court.Â
Heard Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Varsha Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate for the
respondent.
Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Sr. Advocate for the petitioner submits that 47 posts of Clerk are still lying vacant and respondent Department is in habit of
flouting the order passed by the High Court.Â
Case of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent on the ground that case of the petitioner is not covered under the Regularization Rules,
2013 and there is ban imposed by the State Government to fill up the vacant post. Â
Petitioner has not made U.P. State Electricity Board as a party, which in my opinion, is a necessary party. Respondent Department has
categorically stated in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed in WPSS No. 1838 of 2011 that petitioner took apprentice training of Clerk with effect
from 01.12.1984 to 30.12.1984 for which he got stipend and he was never engaged / appointed as apprentice clerk in U.P. State Electricity Board.
Even otherwise, merely completion of apprentice does not confer any right in favour of the petitioner for appointment. Petitioner had not worked with
Department from 1993 to 2011. In compliance of Court’s order, respondent Department has already considered and rejected the claim of the
petitioner for regularization. Earlier, two times vacancies were advertised but petitioner could not be appointed as he was not eligible. This Court can
neither direct the Government to lift the ban for filling up the vacancy nor direct the Department to relax the eligibility criteria for the petitioner
alone.Â
In view of the above discussion, writ fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Â