- (1.) HEARD Mr. M.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Mahendra Nath Yadav, learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.06.2003 (Annexure No.1), whereby the petitioner's case for regularization under Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wager Appointment Group-D Service Rules, 2001 has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not in continuation of service from the date of appointment in the same very department. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged as daily wager in the Forest Department in the year 1985 and worked there till August 1991, thereafter he has been engaged in the Board of Revenue w.e.f. 01.09.1991 on daily wage basis. Rule-4 of the aforesaid rules provides that any person who was directly appointed on daily wage basis on Group-D post in the Government service before June 29, 1991 and is continuing in service as such, on the date of commencement of rules and possess requisite qualification prescribed for regular appointment for that post at the time of such appointment on daily wage basis under the relevant rules, shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy, as may be available in Group-D post on the date of commencement of these rules on the basis of record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or orders.
(3.) IN light of the aforesaid provision, it is stated that the service rendered under the Government department has been acknowledged for the purpose of regularization and since the petitioner had worked in the Government department either it is the Forest department or Revenue Department, his services rendered in those departments are liable to be considered for his regular appointment. He drew attention of this Court towards the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents, whereby the petitioner's working till August, 1991 in the Forest Department has been admitted. It has also been admitted that in the month of September, 1991 the petitioner was engaged in the Board of Revenue. No doubt the petitioner worked in two different departments but under the same very Government, therefore it is stated that the petitioner's whole service either rendered in the Forest department or in the Revenue Department is liable to be considered for the purpose of his regularization under the rules. On the other hand learned Standing Counsel contended that the requirement of appointment on daily wage basis made before June 29, 1991 in a;