P.C. Verma, J. - (1.) BY means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: "(i) to issue a writ of certiorari or an order or a direction in the nature thereof calling for the records and quashing the impugned seniority list issued vide order dated 3.3.2005 (filed as Annexure No. 13 to the writ petition). (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or an order or a direction in the nature thereof commanding the respondent No. 1 to place the petitioner at serial No. 1 above Shri Narshimha Reddy who has wrongly been placed at serial No. 1 in the final seniority list issued vide order dated 3.3.2005 (filed as Annexure No. 13 to this writ petition). (iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or an order or a direction in the nature thereof commanding the respondent No. 1 to promote the petitioner from the date Shri Mahavir Singh has been promoted and give all consequential benefits to the petitioner. - (iv) to issue any other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (v) to award cost of the writ petition to the petitioner."
(2.) THE brief facts emerging out from the pleadings made in the writ petition are that an advertisement was issued by the State Government (Respondent No.1) for filling up the post of the Assistant Town Planners by direct recruitment on ad hoc basis in the "UP Development Authorities Centralized Services" (in short, "the Centralized Services"). THE petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose on 04.07.1987 and was selected alongwith eight other Assistant Town Planners (ATPs). Pursuant thereto, an Office Memorandum of the selected candidates was issued by the State Government on 27.07.1-987 with a list of nine persons appointed as the ATPs (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). THE name of the petitioner found place at serial No. 1 of the list, while the names of the rest of 8 appointees were below the petitioner at serial No. 2 to 9. THE order of names of 9 appointees was as given below; Name of the persons ad hoc appointed as the Assistant Town Planners (ATP) in the Centralized Services vide State Government's office memorandum dated 27.07.1987 in the order given below: JUDGEMENT_459_ADJ10_2010Image1.jpg The appointment, as above, was for a period of one year or the regular selected incumbent through U.P. Public Service Commission (UPPSC) was available. Since no selection was held through UPPSC, the petitioner continued in service uninterrupted. In March 1998, an advertisement was issued for filling up the posts of the ATPs through UPPSC. Being aggrieved, a writ petition was filed by the aforesaid ad hoc appointees (including the petitioner) before the Lucknow Bench of this Court being Writ Petition No. 586/1998 (S/B) (J. Narsimha Reddy and others v. State of UP and others), which was finally disposed on 25.08.2001 with a direction to the State Government to consider their regularisation as per Rule 20-A of the U.P. Development Authorities Centralized Services Rules, 1985 (as amended up to date), if applicable. It may be noticed that a new Rule, being Rule 20-A, was inserted by the U.P. Development Authorities Centralized Services (Third Amendment) Rules, 1992 e in the U.P. Development Authorities Centralised Services Rules, 1985 (in short, "the Service Rules"). It specifically dealt with the regularization of the ad hoc appointees. This Rule 20-A was amended in the year 2001 by changing the relevant date in sub-rule (1) from 1.10.1986 to 29.6.1991.
(3.) PURSUANT to the aforesaid judgment of this Court dated 25.8.2001, a Selection Committee was constituted by the U.P. Government for the regularization of the ad hoc appointed ATPs and its three meetings were held, followed thereafter by issue of three separate regularization orders in regard to 10 ad hoc appointees including one Shri Rajendra Kumar, who was appointed on 14.4.1988, as per details given below: JUDGEMENT_459_ADJ10_2010Image2.jpg The copies of the minutes of the proceedings of the Selection Committee held on 29.9.2001 and 31.12.2003 (obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by the petitioner) are on record (Annexure RA-4). The regularization orders dated 22.11.2001 and 24.3.2004 issued by the State Government are also on record (Annexure Nos. 3 and 6 to the writ petition), which clearly mentioned that the seniority of the appointees would be determined separately on the basis of their initial ad hoc appointments as per Rule 20-A of the Service Rules. As such, the issue of inter se seniority of the regularized persons was kept open in the aforesaid regularization orders. Further, from a perusal of the copies of the minutes, it is also evident that the Selection Committee on no occasion found the petitioner to be unsuitable.;