Devendra Kumar Arora, J. - (1.) BY means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 19.5.2005 (Annexure II), passed by the respondent No. 1. He has further prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to re -consider him for regularisation on Group 'D' post, ignoring the alleged breaks in service.
(2.) FACTS of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner is a Group 'D' employee in Forest Department, working on daily wage basis since July, 1990 but he has not been issued any appointment letter so far. The petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No. 47631 of 2004 before this Court which was finally disposed of vide order dated 09.11.2004 with the direction to the respondent No. 2 to consider the petitioner's claim for regularisation within a period of three months as per the rules and the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Putti Lal. In pursuance of the order dated 09.11.2004 the respondent No. 1 rejected the petitioner's claim for regularisation on the ground that there are breaks in his service from October, 1997 to June, 1998 and October, 1999 to March, 2000. Being aggrieved, petitioner has again approached this Court. Submission of Learned Counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner has been continuously working for last more than 14 years under the respondents as a daily wager. His further submission is that the State Government has framed the Rules known as "U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "rules, 2001'). Apart from it, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision rendered in the case of State of U.P. and Anr. v. Putti Lal, decided on 21.2.2002 has also directed for regularisation of daily wage Group 'D' employees on the basis of the Rules, 2001. The Rule 4(4) provides for preparation of a list of eligible candidates in order of seniority as determined from the date of order of appointment on daily wage basis and the same is to be placed before the Selection Committee alongwith relevant records to assess suitability. Further, as per Rule 4(1) of the said Rules any person who was appointed on daily wage basis on Group 'D' post in the Government Service before 29.6.1991 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of the Rules, would be entitled for consideration of his regular appointment. The petitioner is working in the department since July, 1990 and, as such, as per Rules, 2001 he is entitled for regular appointment.
(3.) FURTHER submission of Learned Counsel for petitioner is that the respondent No. 1 in pursuance of Rules, 2001 forwarded the names of Group 'D' employees of the Department to the Selection Committee but petitioner's name was not forwarded for the reasons best known to him. Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No. 47631 of 2004 before this Court which was finally disposed of vide order dated 09.11.2004 with the direction to the respondent No. 2 of the said writ petition to consider the petitioner's claim for regularisation within a period of three months and in pursuance of the said order the respondent No. 1 rejected the petitioner's claim for regularisation on the ground that there are breaks in his service from October, 1997 to June, 1998 and October, 1999 to March, 2000. In this regard, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that small breaks cannot said to be of any relevance, while considering the claim of petitioner in view of decision of this Court in W.P. No. 16842 of 2004, Jaglal and Ors. v. Director, Horticulture and Ors. as in the said decision it has been categorically observed that the employees working since 21.6.1991 and on 21.12.2001 (When the Regularisation Rules, 2001 came into force) are to be regularised irrespective of any breaks in service.;