- (1.) SPECIAL Appeal No. 794 of 2006 arises against the judgment and order dated 7.7.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the cut off date fixed by the Appellants as 29.6.1991 has been struck down by issuing a writ of mandamus.
(2.) THE controversy raised in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge was for quashing of the order dated 23.2.2005 whereby the Respondents representation for regularizing their services on Group -D post came to be rejected. The aforesaid direction was given in Writ Petition No. 202 (SS) of 2005 vide order dated 25.1.2005. The Respondents, who were working with the Appellants for a considerable long period i.e. 7 to 10 years on daily wage basis, proceeded to move the Appellants for regularizing their services. The Additional Director of Information issued a letter dated 21.8.2000 seeking information about daily wage employees working with the Appellants and also their satisfactory services. Respondents also pleaded that 27 posts are lying vacant, but their candidature for regularization is not being considered. They also made representation to the Chief Minister, whereupon the Secretary to Chief Minister instructed the Director to take necessary action vide letter dated 15.12.2000. When no action was taken by the Director, the Respondents preferred another representation to the Chief Secretary to Government, who also directed the Director to take necessary steps. The Director marked it to the Deputy Director (Admn.) and in pursuance thereof the Deputy Director circulated a letter dated 26.3.2003 to all the officers requiring them to make available the files pertaining to appointment of daily wage employees, their continuity of services and their credentials. When nothing materialized, the Respondents filed Writ Petition No. 202 (SS) of 2005 making a prayer therein that their services may be regularized by the Appellants. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 25.1.2005 by giving direction to the Appellants to dispose of the representation of the Respondents. The representation of the Respondents was considered and rejected vide order dated 23.2.2005. The aforesaid order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 3154 (SS) of 2005. The learned Single Judge while considering the arguments of the Respondents in the aforesaid writ petition, came to the conclusion that fixing of the cut off date as 29.6.1991 was arbitrary and proceeded to struck off the same vide order dated 7.7.2006. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the present special appeal has been filed. Similarly, another set of Respondents have filed Writ Petition bearing No. 7580(SS) of 2007 for regularization of their services and this Court vide order dated 27.11.2007 disposed of the said writ petition with the direction to the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioners of that writ petition (herein Respondents) in the light of the order dated 7.7.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 3154 (SS) of 2005. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid order, Special Appeal No. 536 (SB) of 2008 has been filed.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel has submitted that the cut off date is neither arbitrary nor irrational and the learned Single Judge has committed illegality in striking down the same. It has also been submitted on behalf of the Appellants that the cut off date dated 29.6.1991 was fixed in pursuance to the directions given by the apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of State of U.P. and Ors. v. Putti Lal, 2006 SCC (L&S) 1819. In the aforesaid case, the apex Court gave a direction for framing of a scheme for regularization in regard to the persons, who have completed ten years of service and in pursuance thereof the said cut off date was fixed taking into consideration the criteria of completion of ten years of service. Once the Appellants have acted in pursuance to the direction of the apex Court, the cut off date fixed by the Appellants cannot be said to be arbitrary and irrational in any manner. He has also submitted that the law as propounded by the apex Court goes to indicate that the fixation of cut off date has to be left to the discretion of the authorities as it requires consideration of various factors. The function of fixing the cut off date is executive and the Courts should be slow to interfere in the reasonableness of the cut off date. Once the cut off date is fixed, one or the other persons is bound to be affected on account of slight variation and disqualification, but that cannot be a ground to declare the cut off date to be ultra vires as the said situation will be prevailing all along so far cut off date is fixed. Further submission is that various Respondents have not completed even ten years of service and as such their candidature for regularization could not have been considered, but under the judgment of this Court their regularization was considered and they have been regularized. It is also submitted that it is a one time exercise to be undertaken by the department in view of the law laid down in the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi : (2006) 4 SCC 1, and so it cannot be a continuous process of perennial nature to regularize all those, who were entered the service from back door. He has also drawn the attention of the Court towards the observations of the apex Court made in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Piara Singh and Ors. : (1992) 4 SCC 118 and specially para 21 of the said judgment.;