RITU RAJ AWASTHI,J. - (1.) AS there is no objection from the respondents to the applications for condonation of delay, being allowed, they are hereby allowed and the period of delay as pointed out by the Registry is, thus, condoned. Since all the aforesaid special appeals arise out of the same judgment and order and having similar facts & circumstances of the case, as such, they were connected and heard together and are now being decided by the common judgment.
(2.) FOR convenience the pleadings made in Special Appeal No. 463 (D) of 2013; State Election Commission, U.P., Lucknow and Others Vs. Brij Kumar and Others and Writ Petition No. 3052 (SS) of 2004; Brij Kumar and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others have been considered by us while deciding the special appeals. We have heard Mr. Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned Senior Advocated assisted by Ms. Aprajita Bansal, learned counsel for appellants, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Upendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for private-respondents and perused the pleadings of special appeals. These intra Court appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 14.6.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 3052 (SS) of 2004; Brij Kumar and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others and other connected writ petitions. The factual matrix as borne out from the record of appeals are that the respondents-petitioners were initially engaged on class IV posts on daily wage basis/consolidated pay in the office of State Election Commission, U.P. (for short 'the Commission')/appellants during the period 1994 to 2001. They remained associated with various elections held by the Commission. Since a large number of substantive vacancies of class IV posts were lying vacant in the Commission, the Secretary of the Commission issued a circular letter dated 23.3.1996 mentioning therein that the existing posts of class IV shall be filled up from amongst such employees who have earlier worked as daily wagers/contract basis in the Commission during previous elections.
(3.) IN November, 1997, a ban was imposed on fresh recruitment by the State Government, however, on 30.1.2001 a notification was issued by the State Government laying down the procedure for recruitment on Group 'D' posts in the Commission. By this notification the Secretary of the Commission was made the appointing authority and the selection on Class IV posts were to be made on the basis of recommendation of duly constituted selection committee. Consequent to this notification, the appointing authority issued a circular on 15.6.2001 inviting applications from the persons who had working experience on class IV posts in the Commission. The persons were to be appointed on contract basis, in view of existing ban on regular appointment by the State Government. Respondents-petitioners having working experience had applied for appointment on Group 'D' posts. On 30.6.2001, the appointing authority constituted two selection committees. The said committees held interviews in which respondents-petitioners appeared. On 23.7.2001 the appointment orders were issued by the appointing authority indicating the terms of appointment of respondents-petitioners.;