- (1.) Petitioner before this Court seeks quashing of the order dated 29.5.1992 whereunder the appointment offered to the Petitioner as Assistant Lekha Parikshak in Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur vide order of the Mukhya Nagar Lekha Parikshak, Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur has been cancelled by the Director, Local Bodies, U.P. Lucknow. Further prayer has been made that the Respondents may be directed to regularise the service of the Petitioner. Facts in short on record of this petition are as follows: Petitioner was appointed as Sahayak Lekha Parikshak in the pay scale of Rs. 420-735/- in the employment of Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur on purely temporary basis under order of the Mukhya Nagar Lekha Parikshak dated 6.6.1986. The order is on record as Annexure-4 to the writ petition which recorded that exemption from the order of the Commissioner, Allahabad Region, Allahabad, qua experience of two years working in the Accounts Department of Local Bodies is to be obtained. The appointment so offered to the Petitioner has been cancelled under the impugned order after recording that vide notification of the Government Order dated 3.5.1983, the post of Sahayak Lekha Parikshak has been brought within the purview of the Mahapalika Centralised Services Rules and, therefore, the Mukhya Nagar Lekha Parikshak had no jurisdiction/authority to offer any such appointment. This Court finds that on 10.6.1987, the Commissioner, Allahabad Region, Allahabad granted relaxation from two years experience, in favour of the Petitioner. A copy of the order in that regard is enclosed as Annexure No. 5.
(2.) On behalf of the Petitioner, supplementary-affidavit has been filed on 8.4.2010. In paragraph 2, it is stated that under the U.P. Nagarpalika Seva Order, 1963 issued in exercise of powers under Section 106 read with Section 109 of Mahapalika Adhiniyam qua, the Commissioner has been conversed power to grant relaxation in the matter of essential qualification prescribed. Copy of the Order 1963 has been enclosed as Annexure SA-1. It has further been stated that on 30.4.2003, the State Government has issued U.P. Palika Centralised Services 21st Amendment Rules, 2003 which provide for regularisation of ad-hoc appointment on centralised post. The case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid regularisation rules. Reference is also be made to the case of Satya Priya Mishra, Dinesh Chandra Sharma and Sudhir Dutt Mishra who are stated to be similarly appointed and the State Government has directed that they should be regularized. Reliance has also been placed upon by Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Brij Mohan Srivastava and Anr., 2002 (4) 610 .
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have examined the records.;