MOHD. YAQOOB Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri A.M. Zaidi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. It is the case of the petitioner that initially on 19.4.1973 the petitioner was appointed on the post of Seench Parvekshak/Amin in Work Charge in the office of Investigation and Planning Division of Irrigation Department, Mahoba and worked up to 15.5.1974. The service certificate of the aforesaid period dated 18.1.1975 issued by Executive Engineer is annexure -1 to the writ petition. Thereafter, on 10.5.1977 the petitioner was appointed on the post of Work Supervisor as Work Charge employee and thereafter, he was posted as Senior Work Supervisor w.e.f. 10.3.1981. Thereafter, vide order dated 25.5.1995 the petitioner's appointment has been regularised on the post of Seenchpal. The petitioner filed a representation claiming that his services should be regularised on the post of Seench Parvekshak and not on the post of Seenchpal. When nothing has been done, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 24466 of 1995. The said writ petition was entertained on 5.9.1995 and as an interim measure the petitioner has been allowed to continue as Senior Work Supervisor. The said writ petition has been disposed of finally on 5.11.1999 with the direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner. The representation of the petitioner has been decided vide order dated 1.1.2000, which is impugned in the present writ petition. In the representation, the petitioner has stated that he has worked for long time as Seench Parvekshak and the service of the juniors to the petitioner have been regularised on the post of Seench Parvekshak and, therefore, the service of the petitioner should also be regularized on the post of Seench Parvekshak. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that for the post of Seench Parvekshak six month's training was necessary as per Seench Parvekshak Seva Niyamavali, 1954, while the petitioner had not undergone training and the other three employees, who have been regularized, were trained Seench Parvekshak and, therefore, their services have been regularized on the post of Seench Parvekshak. Being aggrieved by the order of the Chief Engineer dated 1.1.2000 the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) AN amendment application has been filed seeking the mandamus to the respondent to regularise the services of the petitioner on the post of Seench Parvekshak instead of Seenchpal. During the pendency of the writ petition on 23.7.2012 an amendment application has been field seeking further relief in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 13.4.2012, by which the services of the petitioner on the post of Seench Parvekshak has been confirmed w.e.f. 1.9.2011. The date of the appointment of the petitioner is mentioned as 8.8.2003.

(3.) SRI Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that when the claim of the regularization of the petitioner's service was considered, he had not undergone training for Seench Parvekshak and, therefore, he was not eligible to be regularized on the post of Seench Parvekshak and his appointment could only be regularized on the post of Seenchpal. When the petitioner had undergone training his service has been regularized on the post of Seench Parvekshak against the substantive vacancy on 6.8.2003 and subsequently, his service has been confirmed by order dated 13.4.2012 w.e.f. 1.9.2011. He further submitted that the petitioner has been engaged on 10.5.1977 as Work Supervisor as a Work Charge employee. The Work Charge employee is not Government servant. The payment of Work Charge is always made from the concerned project budget. In paragraph 14 of the counter -affidavit, it is specifically denied that the petitioner has worked from 19.4.1973 to 15.5.1974. There is no record available regarding the work done by the petitioner from 19.4.1973 to 15.5.1974. It is further stated that the office of respondent No. 3 was established in the year 1976 and the alleged work certificate, annexure -1 to the writ petition, was not issued from the office of answering respondent. In para 19 of the counter -affidavit it is stated that the petitioner was given regular appointment in the regular establishment on the post of Seenchpal on 25.5.1995 but the petitioner did not join on the post of Seenchpal and he refused the same and continued to work as Work Charged establishment upto 7.8.2003.