High Court · 2025 on 31 Jul 2025

Judgment

1. Heard Sri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing State respondents.

2. By means of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has questioned the order dated 14.10.2020 passed by competent authority in the matter, namely, respondent no. 1 whereby claim of the petitioner for regularization has come to be rejected merely on the ground that petitioner had continued in employment on ad hoc basis as Naib Tehsildar (Collection) a next higher post to the post of Collection Amin upon which he was working.

3. Ground taken under the order impugned is that in view of new Regularization Rules, 2003 coming into force w.e.f. 16.08.2003 the quota of for promotion of Collection Amin to the next higher post as Nayab Tehsildar has been taken away.

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has continued to work on ad hoc basis on the post of Nayab Tehsildar ever since first appointment on ad hoc basis on 17.12.1990 with certain breaks from time to time and when he met with some issue of discontinuance, he filed another writ petition being no.18515 of 1994, before this Court, which was disposed of with direction to his representation, Upon rejection of the same n 26.4.1994, petitioner filed another writ petition before the Court in which interim stay order was granted on 5.10.1994 and thereafter he was made to continue and while he was working, recommendation came to be made on 19.9.2008 for regularization of the petitioner taking aid to 1 of 6 the U.P. Regularization of Ad hoc promotions (On Posts Outside The Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1988 as amended vide notification dated 20th December, 2001.

5. Upon recommendation being made, it is submitted, Board of Revenue called for report and report was submitted to it on

19.12.2008 and even thereafter departmental examination was held in the year 2011, which report was also submitted but Board of Revenue came to reject the claim for regularization vide order dated 3rd September, 2013. Upon being challenged before this Court vide writ petition being Writ A No. 68750 of 2013 the Court expressed its view that claim of the petitioner deserved to be considered in the light of regularization Rules 1988, which stood modified on

20.12.2001 as cut off date given under 1988 Rules came to be extended as 30th June, 1998 and petitioner was admittedly working on the said date on ad hoc basis as Nayab Tehsildar.

6. It is argued that even though petitioner had represented the matter under the order of this Court dated 17.4.2019 finally disposing of writ petition being Writ A No. 68750 of 2013, when nothing further progressed, he was compelled to file contempt application before this Court being Contempt Application (Civil) No. 2992 of 2020 and notices upon being issued, the State Government finally passed the order disposing of the claim of the petitioner on

14.10.2020 rejection thereof rending contempt application as infructuous.

7. Submission is that having seen sword of contempt proceeding hanging for non compliance, the claim of regularization came to be rejected without due application of mind and without evaluating and appreciating the facts of the present case of petitioner and without testing the same properly on touchstone of the 1988 Regularization Rules as amended in the year 2001.

8. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel sought to defend the order vide reasoned assigned therein. 2 of 6

9. Having perused the records and having gone through the pleadings as well as Regularization Rules, 1988, in my considered view the point that requires consideration of this Court has, whether petitioner's claim deserved to be allowed on terms and conditions laid down under Rule 4 of 1988 Rules which have stood amended in the year 2001 (20.12.2001) The rules provided for cut off date as

30.6.1998.

10. Before examining the order impugned, I consider it appropriate to reproduced Rule 4 of 1988 Rules to appreciate the issue that arising for consideration of this Court. Rule 4 of 1988 Rules are reproduced hereunder: “4. Regulation of ad hoc appointments.- (1) Any person who- (i) was directly appointed on ad hoc basis before January 30.6.1998 and is continuing in service, as such, on the date of commencement of these rules: (ii) possessed requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment at the time of such ad hoc appointment: and (iii) has completed or, as the case may be, after he has completed three years service on the post or posts refereed to in clause (1) shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or orders. (2) In making regular appointment under these rules, reservation for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and other categories, shall be made in accordance with the orders of the Government in force at the time of recruitment. (3) For the purpose sub-rule (1) the appointing authority shall constitute a Selection Committee and consultation with the Commission shall not be necessary: (4) The appointing authority shall prepare an eligibility list of the candidates, arranged in order of seniority as determined, from the date of order of appointment and, if two or more persons are appointed together, from the order in which their names are arranged in the said appointment order. The list shall be placed before the Selection Committee along with their character rolls and such other records, pertaining to them, as may be considered necessary to judge their suitability. (5) The Selection Committee shall consider the cases of the candidates on the basis of their records referred to in sub-rule (4). 6) The Selection Committee shall prepare a list of selected candidates, the names in the list being arranged in order of seniority, and forward it to the appointing authority. 3 of 6 (7). Where in respect of any person, who is eligible for being considered for regularization under these rules, a formal departmental enquiry is pending or there is an order of the Court on account of which or for any other reason it is not possible to make regular appointment by promotion of such a person, selection committee shall place its recommendation in a sealed cover and shall mention this fact against the names of the concerned person inhe list prepared under sub-rule (6).” (emphasis added)

11. Upon bare reading of the rules as quoted above, the qualification that a candidature for ad hoc promotion requires to fulfil for the purpose of regularization are three fold: (i) Firstly, such a candidate must have been working from since to cut-off 30th June, 1988 and must have been promoted on ad hoc basis only; (ii) Secondly a candidate must have possessed the eligibility criteria laid down under the rules qua post for the purpose of promotion; (iii) thirdly there should be vacancy available to absorb such ad hoc appointees.

12. Now coming to the order impugned in this petition, I find only two points that were given due consideration: firstly, as to whether petitioner's case stood covered within the cut off as amended in the year 2011; secondly as to whether the vacancy was available or not. To the Question as to whether petitioner was duly continuing on ad hac basis under the orders of the authority, namely, respondent no. 1, it has come to be held that in view of notification of new rules covering the recruitment and appointment on the post of Nayab Tehsidar w.e.f 6.8.2003, since promotion quota of six percent reserved for Collection Amin to be promoted, had been done away with, therefore, petitioner could not be considered. Under the 1988 Rules for the purposes of regularization; and secondly that petitioner’s representation having been rejected for regularization since he had continued under the orders of this Court, it would not count for regular an ad hoc promotion. 4 of 6

13. Admittedly, in the present case, petitioner had been initially promoted or given charge of higher post of Nayab Tehsildar on

17.12.19990 with certain intervention of the Court and he was continuing as such. The intervention of the Court could not in any manner have influenced the authority in holding that since petitioners continued under the order of the Court, he was not to be treated as an ad hoc basis continuing under the order of an authority if dependent way of promotion to be accorded consideration for regularization.

14. Going through the bare facts of the case, I find that petitioner was continuing as such in the year 2001 when regularisation rules 1988 came to be amended. Petitioner was initially working under the order of the authority dated 17.12.1990 and obviously for the reason that he deserved to be promoted. He deserved it as well for qualification that he possessed and eligibility criterion that he otherwise met on the date of coming into force of the amended provisions of the Rules of 1988 i.e. 12.12.2001 with cut off date as

30.6.1998 for claimant to be working. Admittedly, the Rules 2003 that have done away with 6 percent quota for the Collection Amin had not seen the light of the day on the date petitioner deserved promotion initially, and meaning thereby petitioner's candidature ought to have been considered by the department itself under 2001 Rules. There was merit in the claim set up by ad hoc appointees on the date Rules had been brought into force. It can be termed as unfortunately only that a duly working ad hoc employee had to approach Court to obtain stay order against illegal removal or discontinuance in the face of the fact that State Government was considering amendment to the 1988 Rules. It should, therefore, have happened automatically and there was legitimate expectation as well. This plea taken under the order impugned that petitioner could not be promoted on account of coming into force of 2003 rules taken away 6 percent quota, cannot be accepted.

15. In so far as other aspect is concerned, I have already dealt with above that intervention of the Court was rightfully claimed to 5 of 6 arrest miscarriage of justice at the end of his employer. Article 14 of the Constitution of India very clearly lays down principles of equality before law and equal protection of laws.

16. In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 the Court has very categorically held that that any action which is arbitrary in the nature would get hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. Applying though principles to the facts of the case, respondents are found to have discontinued the petitioner from time to time at their own sweet-will while he had worked on ad hoc basis. For such arbitrary exercise of power at the end of the employer, if employee had to rush to the Court for justice and he gets interim protection of the Court, his continuance would not be rendered illegal. Hence the plea taken by the respondents that petitioner since continued under the order of the Court and hence did not deserve regularisation is liable to be rejected.

17. At this stage, learned Standing Counsel is taken the plea that vacancy was not available on account of senior person being promoted, but in support of the stand so taken no statistics have been provided in the order impugned, nor pleading as such is supported by any material in the counter affidavit so sustained findings returned by the authority.

18. In view of above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

19. The order passed by respondent no. 1 dated 14.10.2020 Board of Revenue is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders giving regularization to the petitioner w.e.f. coming into force Rues i.e. 20.12.2001 with all consequential benefits. The appropriate order shall be passed within a maximum period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Sanjeev 6 of 6 SANJEEV RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad