- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) This intra court appeal has been filed against the order dated 14.05.2013 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ petition No.10759 of 1997 (Peetam Singh versus State of U.P. and others) whereby the said writ petition has been dismissed, which reads thus: "The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 4.3.1997 whereby his prayer for regularization of services on the post of vacant junior clerk has been rejected by the Chief Electoral Commissioner/Mukhya Nirvachan Adhikari/respondent no.1. A brief reference to the factual aspect would suffice; The petitioner was engaged as a junior clerk in the office of Zila Nirvachan Adhikari, Meerut on 30.10.1989. It is stated that he was again appointed in the same office on 10.5.1991 and worked up to 30th September, 1991. The petitioner has given a detail of his working days in paragraph no. 7 of the writ petition. Petitioner's grievance is that he was entitled for regularization. He made several representations before the authority concerned, when his representations failed to find favour from the respondents, he preferred a writ petition no. 41607 of 1996 before this court which was disposed of on 6.1.1997 with a direction upon the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. In compliance thereof, the Chief Electoral Officer/Mukhya Nirvachan Adhikari passed the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization inter alia on the ground that he had worked only for a brief spell of time i.e.one year eight months and twenty one days in total and he is also not a retrenched employee. Therefore, in view of the statutory rules, he was not entitled for regularization. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. The stand taken therein for regularization is that the petitioner was engaged from time to time in District Electoral Office, Meerut on the purely temporary basis for specific work and for a particular period. It is further stated that the services of such purely temporary incumbents are automatically terminated without prior notice on the expiry of the term. specified period of the post. I have heard Sri Dharmendra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has worked for a quite long time therefore, he is entitled for regularization. On the contrary, learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner was engaged on purely temporary basis for the specific works during elections period. He relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench dated 13.8.2004 of this Court passed in Special Appeal No. 337 of 2003. The relevant parts of the judgment reads as under; ".................They were not appointed against substantive vacancies on permanent posts but they were given short term appointments during the time of the election due to the increase of work load for short duration. For regularization and substantive appointment a procedure has been prescribed under the U.P. Election Department District Level Ministerial Service Rules, 1992 as amended in 1995. Under the rules there are only two modes by which regularization can be granted. The first mode is that those who were appointed on ad hoc basis and had worked continuously for more than 3 years and their cases are governed by the U.P. Regularization of ad hoc appointment( On posts out side the purview of the public service Commission) Rules can be considered for regularization on the basis of the past performance character roll etc. The writ petitioners were not eligible for regularization under the Regularization Rules as they did not fulfill the eligibility criteria prescribed by the Rules. The writ petitioners had not worked continuously for more than 3 years on the relevant dates...................................... ..............In another matter pertaining to the Chief Electoral Officer, U.P. another learned Single Judge considered the subsequent change in the judicial trend in respect to regularization and in his judgment dated 11.9.2002 in Writ Petition No. 19392 of 1988 Mahendra Kumar Vs. D.M. Azamgarh decided on 11.9.2002 held that short term appointees even if they work for a few years, in different spells are not entitled to claim regularization contrary to the Rules." Indisputably, the petitioner was engaged on purely temporary basis. The details given by him in paragraph no. 7 itself establish that he was engaged from time to time and he had not worked for more than two years. The services of an employee working in election department are governed by the U.P. Election Department District Level Ministerial Service Rules, 1992 (for short Rules 1992). In the said rule, the retrenched employee has also been defined under Rule 3 (Jha). A perusal of the definition of a retrenched employee, it is manifest that minimum three years services are required to come under the definition of the retrenched employee. Indisputably, the petitioner has worked less than two years from time to time with certain breaks. Thus, he can not be treated as a retrenched employee. A perusal of the Rule, it is evident that procedure for the employment has been laid down in the said Rule. The Rule -8 of 1992 Rules provides the minimum qualification and the selection can be made by the direct recruitment. In absence of any provision for regularization, the petitioner is not entitled for the same. I do not find any error in the impugned order dated 4.3.1997. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed as it lacks merits. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs"
(3.) Against the said order dated 14.05.2013, petitioner-appellant has preferred this special appeal with a prayer to allow this special appeal and set aside the said order dated 14.05.2013.;