- (1.) ARUN Tandon, J. Impleadment Application is allowed. Petitioner is permitted to implead the persons referred to in the impleadment application as respondent Nos. 4 to 43 during the course of the day.
(2.) HEARD Sri R. N. Singh Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Nagendra Mohan, Advocate on behalf of petitioners, Sri Raj Kumar Jain, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rahul Jain, Advocate on behalf of respondent Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42 and 43, Sri Anil Bhushan, Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 4 and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3, namely, Harish Chand Ram, Brij Lal, and Bhabhuti Prasad, were initially appointed as Upper Division Assistants, while petitioner No. 4, namely, Ram Pher was appointed as Lower Division Assistant, in the office of Board of Revenue, Allahabad, in pursuance of the selections held by the U. P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission, Lucknow on 30th June, 1993. The petitioners have been continuously working since then. As on the date of filing of present writ petition, the petitioners claim to have completed more than ten years of service and have been confirmed. It is claimed that on completing ten years of service petitioners were entitled for promotion and therefore, represented for such consideration. On 4th February, 2002, two Regularization lists bearing letter Nos. 323 and 325, were published by the respondents, first list contained name of 40 persons, second list contained name of 121 persons. The persons mentioned in the lists were regularized on the post of Upper Division Assistant on the recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted with reference to the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad hoc Promotions (On posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) (Fist Amendment) Rules, 2001.
(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioners their names were liable to be placed at Serial No. 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the aforesaid list of Upper Division Clerk (Letter No. 323 dated 4th February, 2002 ). It is further stated that the persons, whose name have been mentioned in the aforesaid list for regularization, did not possess requisite qualifications prescribed at the time of Ad-hoc appointment and therefore, regularization offered was illegal. The petitioners, therefore, approach this Court by means of present writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3437 of 2004, challenging the regularization list being letters Nos. 323 and 325 dated 4th February, 2002, as also the letter No. 474 dated 20th February, 2002 whereby persons mentioned in lists dated 4th February, 2002 have been confirmed. A writ of mandamus has also been prayed for commanding the respondents not to prepare any gradation list ignoring the name of the petitioners in view of the aforesaid regularization orders.;