ARUN TANDON,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
(2.) PETITIONER , before this Court, seeks quashing of the order passed by the Superintendent Engineer (RES) Circle, Allahabad dated 22nd March, 2000, wherein regularization offered to the petitioner under the order dated 15th October, 1994 has been cancelled after recording a finding that the petitioner's case is not covered by the U.P. Regularization of Ad-Hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Second Amendment Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Amendment Rules, 1989') and therefore, order of regularization dated 15th October, 1994 being patently illegal was cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order submits that petitioner was initially appointed on 28th May, 1986 for a period of three months, a copy of the appointment letter has been enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, and thereafter, he was offered appointment under the order dated 27th July, 91987 for a period of six months. It is stated that the respondent-authorities considered the claim of the petitioner for regularization under Amendment Rules, 1989 and after obtaining opinion in the mater declared that the period between 1986 to 1987, when the petitioner did not work, be treated as leave without pay and on that basis an order was passed for regularizing the services of the petitioner treating him to have been appointed on ad-hoc basis on 29th May, 1986.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that although the present writ petition is completely silent about the claim petition filed by the petitioner before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, but through supplementary affidavit filed in the year 2003, the petitioner has disclosed that he had approached this Court earlier by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24414 of 1989 for regularization. The writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 13th December, 1989 with a direction upon the petitioner to approach the U.P. Public Service Tribunal. Petitioner, therefore, filed claim petition no. 18/F/III of 1990 before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal, wherein an order of status quo was passed on 18th January, 1990. While the claim petition was pending and affidavits were exchanged, the petitioner was regularized under order dated 27th July, 1994. The petitioner, therefore, made an application for his claim petition being dismissed as withdrawn. Accordingly, the claim petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22nd September, 1995/9th August, 1995. He therefore, submits the recall of the order of regularization in the facts of the present case is patently unjustified and amounts to negation of the proceedings which were initiated by the petitioner before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal.;