- (1.) S. C. Verma, J. By this Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for direction com manding the opposite parties to regularise the services of the petitioner as Junior En gineer Civil before any selection and ap pointment is made in pursuance to the ad vertisement contained in Annexure No. 9 to the Writ Petition.
(2.) THE petitioner claims to have joined the Rural Engineering Services department in 1989 being Diploma Holder in Civil En gineering as Work Supervisor. It is alleged that the petitioner joined the post with ef fect from 12-8-1989 and he worked till 31-10-1989. THE petitioner was again ap pointed as Work Supervisor by order dated 20-10-1989 on a consolidated pay of Rs. 400 per month and he joined the services at Bara Bankion 6-11-89. By order dated 14-2-1990 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Faizabad Circle, Faizabad, the services of the petitioner were extended upto 14-5-1990. THE petitioner was not allowed to continue after 15-5-1990 and as such he approached this Court claiming similar benefits as has been given to the petitioners of writ petition No. 7357/1990, 5307/90, 11178 of 1990 and 11183 of 1990. THE petitioner claimed that he had completed more than 240 days in a Calendar year and as such he has attained the status of temporary employee and is entitled for regularisation under the provisions of Rule 77 of the Rules framed under the Industrial Disputes Act. THE petitioner has further alleged that his work and conduct has always been excellent and there was no reason for not providing fur ther work to the petitioner when the posts were lying vacant. THE petitioner has also alleged that the existence of the vacancy is established by the fact that the department has requisitioned for recruitment of 450 posts of Junior Engineers through U. P. Public Service Commission by advertise ment No. 5/91-92, contained in Annexure No. 9 to the Writ Petition. A Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents in which it has been stated that the petitioner was initially employed for three months as Work Super visor (Mate) on a consolidated pay of Rs. 400 per month on a new construction site. The respondents have further taken the stand that after the work at site was com pleted the services of the petitioner were dispensed with, with effect from 14- 5-1990 and as there was no work available the petitioner, was not provided any further work. The respondents have also denied the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of services merely on the ground that he has completed 240 days in a Calendar year. It has been alleged on behalf of the respon dents that the petitioner did not fulfil the requisite requirements of the regularisation Rules, nor any ad hoc employee has been considered for regularisation of services. In fact the department is making regular recruitment through U. P. Public Service Commission and the posts have been adver tised for which the petitioner could have also applied on the basis of his eligibility. In the Rejoinder Affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, it has not been denied that he was initially given appoint ment by an order dated 20-10-1989 on the basis of which he joined on 6-11-1989 and he was allowed to continue till 14-5-1990. The petitioner has not placed any material on record to establish that after 14-5-1990 he was taken in employment. The main reliance placed by the petitioner is on the basis of judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21-7-1993 passed in Writ Peti tion No. 7357 of 1990 Shiv Dhani Singh Yadav and others v. State of U. P. through The Secretary, Gramya Vikas Civil Secretariat, Lucknow and others- The petitioner has also placed reliance on another order dated 14-2-1996 passed in Writ Petition No. 6031 (S/s) of 1994 providing benefit to the petitioner of the Writ Petition as given in Writ Petition No. 8148 of 1990.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. The material on record fully estab lish that the petitioner has worked on the post of Work Supervisor (Mate) with effect from 6-11-1989 to 14-5-1990. The initial appointment of the petitioner was for three months which ended on 31-10-1989 but thereafter it was extended by another order dated 20-10-1989. The petitioner was being paid a consolidated salary of Rs. 400/- per month. The above fact further establish that the petitioner was not appointed on a regular post or in a regular pay scale nor his appointment was on ad hoc basis. The claim of the petitioner that he has worked for more than 240 days in a Calendar and as such he is entitled for regularisation is mis conceived as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khagesh Kumar and others v. In spector Genenu of Registration and others, 1995 Supp. (4) Supreme Court Cases 182. Their Lordships have held as under: "it has been urged on behalf of the petitioners that many of them have rendered con tinuous service for more than 240 days in a year and that they are entitled to be regularised. We find no merit in this contention. In Delhi Develop ment Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Admn. 4 (1992) 4 SCC 99, this Court has not accepted the principle that an employee can seek regularisation only on the ground that he has put in work for 240 or more days. Similarly in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, this Court while setting aside the direction of the High Court that all those ad hoc/temporary employees who had continued for more than a year should be regularised has observed: (SCC p. 142 para 33 ). "none of the decisions relied upon by the High Court justify such wholesale, unconditional orders. Moreover, from the mere continuation of an ad hoc employee for one year, it cannot be presumed that there is need for a regular post. Such a presumption may be justified only when such continuance extends to several years. Fur ther, there can be no 'rule of thumb' in such matters. Conditions and circumstances of one unit may not be the name as of the other. Just because in one case, a direction was given to regularise employees who have put in one year's service as far as possible and subject to fulfilling the qualifications. It cannot be held that in each and every case such a direction must follow ir respective of and without taking into account the other relevant circumstances and consideration" In that case, this Court has, however, observed: (SCC p. 153, para 51 ). "if a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell-say two or three years-a presumption may arise that there is regular need for his ser vices. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the authority concerned to examine the feasibility of his regularisation. " Regularisation in service in the State of U. P. is governed by the Regularisation Rules which prescribes a period of three years' continuous service. We cannot say-that the said period of three years prescribed under the Regularisation Rules is unreasonable. In these circumstances, it must be held that unless the petitioners ful fil the requirement, of the Regularisation Rules, they can not be regularised.;