- (1.) HEARD Sri Anil Tewari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 8th March, 1999 and 3rd November, 1999, Annexure Nos. 'ii' and 'i' to the writ petition, passed by respondents 2 and 4 rejecting his claim for pay protection for the period 10th March, 1989 to 10th April, 1991 as Assistant Consolidation Officer after his appointment on the post of Sub-Registrar and also declining to give benefit of service for the purpose of seniority. He has further sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to count his services rendered as Assistant Consolidation Officer and Accounts Officer for giving service benefits and seniority under Fundamental Rule 22-A. Learned Standing Counsel at the outset submits that a similar issue has already been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21442 of 2002, Raj Nath Ram v. State of U. P. & Ors. , wherein this Court has held, that such benefit cannot be granted. The petitioner was selected by U. P. Public Service Commission and appointed as Assistant Consolidation Officer on 10th March, 1989 on probation in the pay scale of Rs. 1,400-2,300. While working on the said post, he appeared in Civil Service Examination conducted by the U. P. Public Service Commissioner and was selected and appointed to the post of Accounts Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 2,200-4,000 vide appointment letter dated 11th February, 1991. Pursuant thereto, he joined as Accounts Officer on 11th April, 1991. Again he appeared in another selection conducted by U. P. Public Service Commission and was selected for the post of Sub-Registrar vide appointment letter dated 11th May, 1994. Pursuant thereto, he joined on the said post on 3rd September, 1994 in the pay scale of Rs. 1,660-2,600, (revised to Rs. 2,000-3,200 with effect from 1st January, 1996 ). Thereafter the petitioner made representations dated 23rd May, 1997, 1st August, 1997 and 27th October, 1998, respectively to the respondents requesting for giving benefit of service rendered by the petitioner as Assistant Consolidation Officer and Accounts Officer for the purpose of pay protection and seniority, but the same has been turned down by the orders impugned in the present writ petition.
(3.) FROM the facts available on records, it is not disputed that the petitioner was never confirmed as Assistant Consolidation Officer or Accounts Officer at any point of time. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on U. P. Finance and Accounts Service Rule, 1992, published on 17th March, 1992 and submitted that the period of probation prescribed under Rule 24 (1) and (2) is two years, which is extendable by one year, but not beyond two years. The petitioner submitted that since he worked as Accounts Officer for more than three years and therefore he would be deemed confirmed and is entitled for the benefit of said service. However, we do not find any force in the aforesaid submission for two reasons. Firstly, Rule 24 (2) provide that the period of probation can be extended for two years, meaning thereby that the maximum period of probation under the aforesaid Rule is four years. The petitioner admittedly worked as Accounts Officer from 11th April, 1991 (appointed on 11th February, 1991) till August, 1994 and thereafter was appointed on the post of Sub-Registrar by the order dated 11th May, 1994 and joined on 18th August, 1994. Thus, the total period for which he has worked on the said post is less than four years. Secondly, Rule 26 of U. P. Finance and Accounts Service Rule, 1992 provides for confirmation, which reads as under : A perusal of Rule 26 clearly shows that a positive order for confirmation is required to be passed by the appointing authority in absence whereof there is no occasion to apply the aforesaid provision in the case in hand. So far as the application of Fundamental Rule 22-A is concerned, the issue has already been considered at great length by the Division Bench in Raj Nath Ram (supra), wherein it has been held : "thus, till such time the petitioner has not been specifically confirmed on the post of the Assistant Employment Officer, he did not held any lien on that post. There is no question of any automatic confirmation or deemed confirmation in view of the specific provisions of the Confirmation Rules. ";