R. A. Sharma, J. - (1.) PETITIONER was appointed as Registration Clerk in 1957 in Registration Department of the Government of U. P. By order dated 9-11- 1979 he was promoted as Sub-Registrar in the same Department on ad hoc basis. Although Ad-hoc appointment of the petitioner as Sub-Registrar, was initially for one year, but petitioner was permitted to continue on that post.
(2.) GOVERNMENT of U. P. from time to time appointed and promoted large number of persons on ad hoc basis. In order to regularise services of those ad-hoc employees GOVERNMENT of U. P. in 1988, in exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, promulgated U. P. Regularisation of Ad-hoc Promotions (on posts within the purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1988, (herein after referred to as Regularisation Rules, 1988). Under Rule 4 of these Rules an employee who was promoted on ad-hoc basis before January 1, 1985 and is continuing in service on that promotion post, if eligible for regular promotion and has completed three years service on the post, shall be considered for regular appointment by promotion on the basis of record and suitability. Under these Rules a Selection Committee was constituted to consider the question of regularisation of service of the petitioner and other employees. After consideration of the record of service of the petitioner and suitability, the Selection Committee recommended the case of petitioner for regularisation of his service and the GOVERNMENT, vide order dated 24-5-1989, regularised the service of the petitioner on the post of Sub-Registrar. The GOVERNMENT, however, vide order dated January 30, 1990, in exercise of power under Fundamental Rule 56, has compulsorily retired the petitioner from service. It is against this order that the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The Selection Committee, constituted under Regularisation Rules, 1988, had considered the record of service and suitability of petitioner and recommended to the Government for regularisation of service of petitioner as he was found to be suitable. Accepting the recommendation of Selection Committee, the Government accordingly issued order dated 24-5-1989 for regularisation of service of petitioner as Sub-Registrar. In case record of service of a Government servant is not satisfactory he is not liable to be regularised and under Regularisation Rules services of those employees are liable to be terminated forthwith. It is strange that about seven months after regularisation of service of the petitioner an order of compulsory retirement has been passed on 30th January, 1990. Service record of the petitioner has been produced by Government before us, and from its perusal it is clear that only three adverse entries in 1974, 1980 and 1982 have been awarded against the petitioner. Nothing adverse against petitioner, after his regularisation in May 1989 has been placed before us. There is no such material on record to show any adverse entry against petitioner after 1982.
(3.) AFTER regularisation of service of the petitioner in May, 1989 there is no adverse entry against him in service record. Adverse entries awarded to petitioner in 1974, 1980 and 1982 have lost their significance, after regularisation of his service. Supreme Court in Dr. Ramaswamy v. Mate of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1982 SC 793, has held that effect of adverse entry is blotted out by the promotion of the employee. The Supreme Court held : "AFTER his promotion as Deputy Commissioner there was no entry in service book to his discredit or hinting even remotely that he had out-lived his utility as a government servant. If there was some entry, not wholly favourable to appellant after his promotion, one might hark back to similar or like entries in the past, read them all in conjunction and conclude that the time had arrived for the government servant to quit government service. But, with nothing of the sort, it is indeed odd to retire a government servant a few months after promoting him to a selection post..................In the face of the promotion of the appellant just a few months earlier and nothing even mildly suggestive of ineptitude or inefficiency thereafter, it is impossible to sustain the order of the government retiring the appellant from service" Again in Brij Mohan Chopra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 948 same principle was reiterated. Relevant passage from the judgment is extracted below :- "On a perusal of the same we find that the respondents took into consideration some of the adverse entries which related to remote past prior to the promotion of the appellant to the post of Joint Director (Industries). It is now settled that adverse entries if any, awarded to any employee lose their significance on or after his promotion to a higher post. The adverse entries awarded to the appellant prior to 1968 could not be taken into consideration and, therefore, the adverse entries for the years 1960-61, 1963-64 and 1964-65 could not legally be taken into consideration in forming requisite opinion to retire the appellant prematurely from service." The Supreme Court further held that old and stale entries should not be taken into account while considering the question of pre-mature retirement ; instead entry of recent past are liable to be considered. As the Government has taken into consideration adverse entries which are remote and were awarded to petitioner before regularisation of his service in May, 1989 and there being nothing adverse against petitioner after regularisation of his service, the order of compulsory retirement suffers from serious infirmity and is liable to be set aside.;