DR. GAJENDRA SINGH & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS
LAWS(UTN)-2012-4-124
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on April 24,2012

Dr. Gajendra Singh And Another Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttarakhand and others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Barin Ghosh, J. - (1.) ON 25th June, 1984, many a people were appointed as ad hoc Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari for a period of one year or until such time the Commission selects Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikaris, whichever is earlier. Petitioners were two of those Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikaris. The said ad hoc appointments, on such terms, were given by the State of Uttar Pradesh and accepted unconditionally by the petitioners. On 14th May, 1979, The U.P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments (on Posts within the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Rules") came into force. In terms thereof, a person, directly appointed on ad hoc basis before 1st January, 1977 and still continuing in service, became entitled to be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancies available in the Government. To the said Rules, on 8th September, 1984, Rule 9 was inserted and, thereby, it was provided that the provisions of the said Rules shall apply, mutatis mutandis, also to any person directly appointed on ad hoc basis on or before 1st May, 1983 and continuing in service as such on 8th September, 1984. Though Rule 9 became part of the said Rules after the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis, the petitioners could not take advantage of the said Rule, inasmuch as, they were admittedly not appointed on ad hoc basis on or before 1st May, 1983. On 7th August, 1989, Rule 10 was inserted to the said Rules and, thereby, the provisions of the said Rules were made applicable, mutatis mutandis, also to any person directly appointed on ad hoc basis on or before 1st October, 1986 and continuing in service as such as on 7th August, 1989. Petitioners did not make any attempt to take benefit of Rule 10 of the said Rules, inasmuch as, although the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis on or before 1st October, 1986, but could not, in law, in view of the terms of their appointment, continue in service as such as on 7th August, 1989. Petitioners, however, despite expiry of one year from the date of their appointment, continued to remain as Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikaris of the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is, however, not known on what basis and how the parties to the contract, without extending the period of the contract, act contrary to the mandatory and essential provisions of the contract.
(2.) BE that as it may, after creation of the State of Uttarakhand by carving out a part of the State of Uttar Pradesh, since the petitioners were working in the territory, which became part of the State of Uttarakhand, they continued to pose as Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikaris of the State of Uttarakhand. State of Uttarakhand, on 7th August, 2002, made Rules for regularisation of those ad hoc employees, who were appointed as such before 30th June, 1998 and continued to remain as such until the date of making of such Rules. It is the contention of the petitioners that, despite making such Rules, while many others similarly situated to that of the petitioners, have been regularised by the State of Uttarakhand; no step was taken to regularise the petitioners. With this grievance, petitioners have approached this Court. As aforesaid, though practically and physically the petitioners were associated as ad hoc Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikaris with the State of Uttar Pradesh since prior to 30th June, 1998 and continued to remain so until the date of creation of the State of Uttarakhand and, thereupon, remained, with their same status, attached to the State of Uttarakhand; but the fact remains, in law, their such association cannot be treated as continuation of an ad hoc appointment contrary to and in breach of the terms of their contract of appointment. We are unable, therefore, to do anything for the petitioners. One wrong, i.e. regularisation of similar people, cannot be perpetuated by directing the State to commit further wrongs by regularising the petitioners. The writ petition, accordingly, fails and the same is dismissed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.