- (1.) HEARD Sri Upendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Aprajita Bansal for opposite party No.s 2, 3 and 4 while learned Standing counsel appears for opposite party No.1.
(2.) THE petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 26.5.2004 passed by the Secretary, U.P. State Election Commission, Lucknow as are collectively contained in annexure No.1 to the writ petition. There are number of petitioners and each has been served with a separate order whereby his services have been dispensed with. In fact, the orders for cancellation of appointment orders of the petitioners dated 23.7.2001 has been passed by the appointing authority himself. Now the petitioners have prayed that they be allowed to continue to work on class IV posts in the office of the State Election Commission, U.P. Lucknow as before and to pay them salary and other consequential benefits. CERTAIN facts will be necessary for adjudication of the matter hence narration of facts is as follows: The petitioners were engaged on class IV posts on daily wage basis/consolidated pay for working in the office of State Election Commission, U.P. between 1994 to 2001. The Commissioner of the State Election Commission issued a circular dated 23.3.1996 providing therein that existing class IV posts shall be filled up from amongst such employees who have earlier worked as daily wagers/contract basis in the Commissioner's office during previous elections of U.P. Legislative Assembly/Panchayati Raj Elections/Local Bodies. Copy of the circular No.962/Ra-Ni-Aa Anubhag-I, issued by Sri R. D. Sonkar, Rajya Nirvachan Ayukta, U.P. Copy of the aforesaid circular has been annexed by the petitioners as annexure No.4 to the writ petition. A ban was imposed on fresh recruitment by the State Government. No appointment on regular selection of class IV post was made. However, on 30.1.2001 a notification was issued laying down procedure for recruitment of Group 'D' posts in 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 a 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. However, persons were to be appointed on contract basis instead of regular basis in view of existing ban on regular appointment. Since the petitioners were having working experience in the Commission they applied for appointment on Group 'D' posts before the appointing authority. On 30.6.2001 the appointing authority issued another circular whereby two selection committees were constituted for recruitment between 1.7.2001 to 4.7.2001.
(3.) THE petitioners appeared for interview before the selection committee and they were selected by the committee. On 23.7.2001 the appointment orders were issued by the appointing authority. The appointment orders were issued by the then respondent No.4 in favour of the petitioners. In the appointment order the appointing authority instead of appointing the petitioners on regular basis has appointed them on consolidated pay on contract basis in view of prevailing ban on fresh recruitment.;