- (1.) Heard Sri Vipin Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Yatindra, learned standing counsel for the respondents. SUBMISSIONS:-
(2.) These writ petitions were heard together on 18.07.2016 and facts as well as submissions of learned counsels for the parties, were noted as under: "Heard Sri Vipin Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Yatindra, learned standing counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the facts and controversy involved in all the above noted writ petitions, are similar in nature and, therefore, they may be heard together. Considering the aforesaid statement, these writ petitions are heard together with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties treating the Writ Petition No.15550 of 1985 as the leading writ petition. In paragraph-6 of the leading writ petition, it is stated that pursuant to the Government Order dated 31.10.1984, the District Selection Committee was constituted and steps were taken to prepare the list for filling up the vacancy. In paragraph-7 of the said writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner of the said writ petition, was registered in the employment exchange and from where he received intimation to appear for interview on 27.03.1985 on which date, he appeared and a list of successful candidates was pasted on the Notice Board on 28.03.1985 in which the name of the petitioner finds mention. In paragraph-8 of the said writ petition, it is stated that by order dated 18.04.1985, the Regional Employment Officer, Agra intimated the petitioner about his appointment in the office of the District Employment Officer, Etah as a peon in the pay-scale of Rs.305-5-330 EB-6-360- EB-6-390 on purely temporary basis. It is stated that the petitioner appeared and he was issued an appointment letter dated 18.04.1985. In paragraph-9, it is stated that on 25.04.1985, the petitioner appeared before the Employment Officer, Etah and produced the relevant documents and he was appointed. In paragraph-14, it is stated that the District Magistrate, Etah issued directions by letter dated 23.09.1985 for termination of services of the employees who were appointed prior to coming into force of the Rules dated 16.03.1985. Aggrieved with the termination order dated 23.09.1985, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the appointments were made strictly in accordance with the provisions of the G.O. dated 31.10.1984. The Rules called "The Group 'D' Employees Services Rules 1985" dated 16.03.1985, were published on 31.08.1985. Thus, they come into force on 31.08.1985. Therefore, the appointments made prior to the coming into force of the aforesaid Rules, shall not be effected by the provisions of these Rules. He further submits that the Rules are prospective in nature and, therefore, they cannot be applied retrospectively. He also submits that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners before terminating their services. Learned standing counsel submits that Rule 1(2) of the Rules provides that the Rules shall come into force immediately. The Rules are dated 16.03.1985 and as such, they came into force immediately, i.e. w.e.f. 16.03.1985. Publication of the Rules in the Gazette on a subsequent date, cannot prevent its operation effective from 16.03.1985. He further submits that G.O. dated 31.10.1984 provides merely for constitution of District Level Committee, but the manner and mode of the selection etc. are to be governed by the Rules. The relevant Rules for the purpose are the aforesaid Rules of 1985 effective from 16.03.1985. Since the selections were made without following due procedure of law and the petitioners were allegedly appointed on 18.04.1985 while the Rules came into force on 16.03.1985 and as such, the cancellation of selection/ appointment of the petitioners, is wholly valid. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for adjournment to make his submissions on the question of coming into force of the Rules of 1985. As prayed, put up on 20.07.2016 for further hearing."
(3.) Today, Sri Saxena submits that non-observance of the Rules in recruiting the petitioners in accordance with the government order, was merely an irregularity and for that reason, the selection and appointment of the petitioners cannot be said to be illegal or void. He further submits that since no fraud was practised by the petitioners to obtain the employment and as such merely because recruitment was not made in accordance with the Rules in force, neither post retirement benefits to those employees who have retired, can be denied nor salary received by the petitioners during continuance of interim order can be recovered. In support of his submissions, he relies upon a decision in the case of Chiraunji Lal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 3 UPLBEC 2072 (para-22).;