Associat ion v. St at e of Maharasht ra and ot hers, report ed in

respondent s. I t is clear from t he record t hat cert ain new post s were creat ed so t here was deart h of Lekhpals, so t he respondent s had t o m eet t he said exigency, t he unt rained Lekhpals were appoint ed in t he different Halkas on ad hoc basis. They did not hold t he requisit e qualificat ion as provided under Rules 5 & 6 of t he Lekhpal Rules, 1958. Their appoint m ent had not been m ade by due process of law in accordance wit h rules; t hey were appoint ed on ad hoc basis. I t is set t led posit ion of law as discussed above, if any person has been appoint ed w it hout any due process of law and w it hout having any requisit e qualificat ion, he cannot claim senior it y from t he dat e of his init ial appoint m ent ; he can only get his senior it y from t he dat e of his regular izat ion. Thus, t he Governm ent had not deliberat ely delayed t heir regular appoint m ent and it is not pleaded in t he pet it ion t hat t here was any m alice or ill- w ill against t he pet it ioners and t heir regular izat ion was delayed. I t is revealed from t he t he exigencies record appoint ed t hem im m ediat ely and t hereaft er t he order of regular izat ion on t he regular post of Lekhpal and for sending t hem t o t raining school were issued. Thus, we find t hat t he conclusions of learned counsel for t he pet it ioners have no force. We com plet ely agree wit h t he subm issions of t he learned counsel for t he St at e. t hat Governm ent t o m eet

21. I n view of t he above legal and fact ual aspect s, t he pet it ioners' period from init ial appoint m ent t o t he dat e of regular izat ion cannot be count ed for fixing t he seniorit y of t he pet it ioners.

22. The pet it ion is liable t o be dism issed. Therefore, t he pet it ion is hereby dism issed accordingly. No order as t o cost s.”

2. Learned counsel for pet it ioner has relied upon Rule 18 of U.P. Lekhpals Service Rules, 1958 challenging t he j udgm ent rendered by learned Tribunal. Rule 18 of t he said Rules reads as under: - “ 1 8 . Te m p o r a r y v aca n ci e s.- ( a) I n t em porary vacancies exceeding one m ont h, candidat es borne on t he list m aint ained under paragraph 5 shall, as far as possible, be appoint ed t heir seniorit y. in accordance w it h ( b) I n t he case of vacancies not exceeding one m ont h, or in vacancies exceeding one m ont h for which a qualified candidat e is not available, t he Assist ant Collect or m ay appoint an unqualified candidat e provided t hat he is sat isfied t hat t he candidat e is ot herwise suit able for t he j ob.”

3. Learned counsel for pet it ioner subm it s t hat since Rule 18( b) enables t he Assist ant Collect or t o 2 appoint an unqualified candidat e against vacancies exist ing on t he post of Lekhpal, t herefore, t he view t aken by learned Tribunal t hat pet it ioner was appoint ed dehors t he Rules, is unsust ainable.

4. Learned counsel for pet it ioner also relied upon a Const it ut ion Bench j udgm ent , rendered by Hon’ble Suprem e Court t he case of Direct Recruit m ent Class I I Engineering Officers’ Associat ion v. St at e of Maharasht ra and ot hers, report ed in ( 1990) 2 SCC 715. Paragraph no. 47( B) of t he said j udgm ent , on which reliance was placed by learned counsel, ext ract ed below: - “ 47( B) I f t he init ial appoint m ent is not m ade by follow ing t he procedure laid down by t he r ules but t he appoint ee cont inues in t he post unint errupt edly t ill t he regular izat ion of his service in accordance wit h t he rules, t he per iod of officiat ing service w ill be count ed.”

5. Appoint m ent s t o t he post of Lekhpal are governed by Lekhpals Service Rules, 1958. Rule 5( 1) of t he said Rules provides t hat only such candidat es as have obt ained t he Pat wari or Lekhpal School Cert ificat e and whose nam es have been brought on t he m ent ioned in Rule 6, shall be eligible for appoint m ent . Conj oint reading of sub- rule ( 3) & ( 4) of Rule 5 reveals t hat ex- pat waris wit h good record of service, who are ot herwise eligible, can also be considered appoint m ent , however, t hey shall be t reat ed as new 3 candidat es and shall not get benefit of t heir past service in any m at t er. Rule 6 provides t hat Collect or shall m aint ain a list of candidat es, who have passed Pat wari or Lekhpal School Exam inat ion for purposes of recruit m ent and appoint m ent from t he nam es included in t he list shall be m ade in order of seniorit y, wit h reference t o year of passing t he exam inat ion. Rule 17 ( 2) provides t hat seniorit y of Lekhpals shall be det erm ined from t he dat e of subst ant ive appoint m ent and if t wo or m ore candidat es are appoint ed on t he sam e dat e, t hen one who passed Pat wari or Lekhpal School Exam inat ion earlier, will be t reat ed as senior. Alt hough Rule 18 enables t he Assist ant Collect or t o appoint an unqualified candidat e against t em porary vacancies, if qualified candidat e is not available, however, such appoint m ent of an unqualified candidat e cannot be t reat ed as subst ant ive appoint m ent , in t erm s of Rule 17( 2) and at best , it can be t reat ed as st op- gap arrangem ent , t ill a qualified candidat e is available for appoint m ent .

6. I t is not in disput e t hat pet it ioner was sent for t raining in t he year 1983 and aft er successful com plet ion of t raining, he was post ed as Lekhpal, on

01.04.1986 and his seniorit y was reckoned from t he 4 dat e of his post ing as Lekhpal aft er successful com plet ion of t raining.

7. As per Rule 5( 1) , a candidat e who has not obt ained t he Pat wari or Lekhpal School Cert ificat e and whose nam e has not been brought on t he cont em plat ed in Rule 6 is ineligible for appoint m ent as Lekhpal. Thus, reliance by learned counsel pet it ioner on Rule 18( b) of t he Service Rules m isplaced. Rule 18 ( b) can be invoked only when t here is no qualified candidat e available for appoint m ent , however, appoint m ent of an unqualified candidat e cannot be t reat ed as subst ant ive appoint m ent for t he purpose of seniorit y. Pet it ioner was given seniorit y from t he dat e he was post ed aft er successful com plet ion of t raining, t herefore, learned Tribunal was j ust ified in rej ect ing pet it ioner ’s claim for seniorit y from t he dat e of his init ial appoint m ent as unt rained Lekhpal.

8. Reliance placed by learned counsel pet it ioner on t he Const it ut ion Bench j udgm ent , rendered in t he case of Direct Recruit m ent Class I I Engineering Officers’ Associat ion v. St at e Maharasht ra and ot hers ( supra) is m isplaced. Pet it ioner was not qualified when he was init ially appoint ed by invoking Rule 18( b) of t he Service Rules, t herefore, he 5 was sent for t raining and upon successful com plet ion of t raining, he was subst ant ively appoint ed as Lekhpal. The j udgm ent relied by learned counsel for pet it ioner cont em plat es a sit uat ion when a person, who appoint ed on ad- hoc basis, fulfills all condit ions of eligibilit y at t he t im e of his init ial appoint m ent . Moreover, pet it ioner was sent for t raining, t herefore, it cannot be said t hat he cont inued t o serve on t he post of Lekhpal, unint errupt edly t ill his subst ant ive appoint m ent .

9. Learned Tribunal has considered all relevant aspect s in t he im pugned j udgm ent . We concur wit h t he reason given by learned Tribunal.

10. Thus, t here is no scope for int erference in t he m at t er. The writ pet it ion fails and is dism issed. ( Su b h a sh Up a d h y a y , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) 25.06.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df0 06da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA87 5643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA 6