- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner urges that petitioner was engaged in the office of Sub-Registrar, Karawali Distt. Mainpuri as water man since 8-8-1991. Subsequently a Vacant post of Class-IV employee (Peon) arose on account of the death of one peon namely Punni Lal, who expired on 4-12-1993. The petitioner alleged that on the death of Punni Lal, though the respondents have appointed other person also he was permitted to discharge duties of Class-IV employee but he has not been paid salary, as admissible to such employee. Aggrieved the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3372 of 1998, in which this Court passed following order on 23-10-1998 : "heard the petitioner as prayed for regularisation. This petition is disposed of with direction to the authorities/concerned to decide petitioner's representation he may make within two months in accordance with law. S/d M. Katju. " The petitioner thereafter, submitted representation dated 10th December, 1998 and respondents have rejected the same vide order dated 27-2-1999. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 27-2-1999. Annexure-9 to the writ petition and also for issue of writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to regularise his services.
(3.) THE petitioner placed reliance on following passage in case of Jackob M. Puthuparambil v. Kerala Water Authority and others, AIR 1990 SC 2228: "if the rule is so interpreted it seems clear to us that employees who have been working on the establishment since long and who possess the requisite qualifications for the job as obtaining on the date of their employment must be allowed to continue on their jobs and their services should be regularized. It is unfair and unreasonable to remove people who have been rendering service since sometime as such removal has serious consequences. THE family of the employee, which has settled down, and accommodated its needs to the emoluments received by the breadwinner, will face economic ruination if the job is suddenly taken away. Besides, the precious period of early life devoted in the service of the establishment will be wholly wasted and the incumbent may be rendered age barred for securing a job elsewhere. It is indeed unfair to use him, generate hope and a feeling of security in him, and attune his family to live within his earnings and then suddenly to throw him out of job. Such behaviour would be an affront to the concept of job security and would run counter to the constitutional philosophy, particularly the concept of right to work in Article 41 of the Constitution. THErefore, if we interpret Rule 9 (a) (i) consistently with the spirit and philosophy of the Constitution, which it is permissible to do without doing violence to the said rule, it follows that employees who are serving on the establishment for long spells and have the requisite qualifications for the job should not be thrown out but their services should be regularized as far as possible. Since workers belonging to this batch have worked on their posts for reasonably long spells they are entitled to regularization in services". However, where an appointment made by the State is without competence or without following the procedure prescribed by law, the incumbent cannot claim any right. In such cases the contract of services is not enforceable in law. Any ad-hoc appointment may by the authority be regularized according to rules, provided that the incumbent has eligibility qualification of the posts. If the incumbent has continued for long, the vacancy should be fill up on permanent basis in accordance with law and the person working on ad hoc basis may also be considered in accordance with rules for regularization. The employer must fill up those posts by a permanent appointment in accordance with the rules rather than allow such ad hoc appointments continued for years together.;