Sudhir Agarwal - (1.) HEARD Sri Kshetresh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
(2.) SINCE the counter and rejoinder affidavits have already been exchanged, as requested by learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition has been heard and is being decided finally under the Rules of the Court. The writ petition has been filed against the Advertisement dated 21.7.2004 published by the Joint Director, Directorate of Technical Education, U. P., Kanpur inviting applications for recruitment and appointment on Class IV post in his office. The facts in brief as stated in this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed in October, 1991 against a vacant Class IV post on daily wage basis and since then he is continuously working on the said post. In the meantime some of the persons who were appointed on daily wage like the petitioner were regularized but the petitioner has not been considered. Since 180 Class IV posts exists under the respondents and a large number thereof are lying vacant, yet instead of considering the petitioner for regularization against one of these Class IV posts, respondents have advertised these vacancies for recruitment from open market, which is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also claims to have made a representation on 27.7.2004 but ignoring the same the respondents are going ahead to make direct recruitment, pursuant to the impugned advertisement. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Workmen of Bhurkunda Colliery of Central Coalfields v. Bhurkunda Colliery of Central Coalfields Ltd., (2006) 3 SCC 297 : 2006 (5) AWC 4814 (SC) ; Gujarat Agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar and others, (2001) 3 SCC 574 : 2001 (1) AWC 2.3 (SC) (NOC) ; Mineral Exploration Corpn. Employees' Union v. Mineral Exploration Corpn. Limited and another, 2006 (6) SCC 310 : 2006 (6) AWC 6420 (SC) as well as a single Judge's decision of this Court in Ramveer Singh and others v. Gas Authority of India Ltd. (G.A.I.L.) and others, 2007 (1) ESC 483 (All) : 2006 (7) AWC 7600, it is contended since the petitioner has already worked for more than 13 years, he is entitled for regularization and the action of the respondents denying the same is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that displacement of an employee after ten years and more causes serious hardship not only to the said employee but also to his entire family and therefore such a person is entitled to be considered for regularization. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Nar Singh Pal v. Union of India, 2000 (3) SCC 588 : 2000 (2) AWC 1499.
(3.) LEARNED standing counsel opposing the writ petition submits that the writ petitioner having been engaged only on daily wage basis, no right to claim for regularization de hors the Rules. He also submitted that recruitment to Class IV posts in the office of the respondents is governed by the Statutory Rules and the engagement of the petitioner being de hors the rules, he has no right to claim regularization. He further submitted that for considering certain category of employees for regularization "the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of ad hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979" (hereinafter referred to as "1979 Rules") and "the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group D Posts, Rules, 2001" (hereinafter referred to as the "2001 Rules") have been published but the case of the petitioner is not covered by any of the said rules, inasmuch as, 1979 Rules are applicable to the persons who were appointed on ad hoc basis and since the petitioner was never engaged on ad hoc basis, therefore, the same do not apply to him. Similarly, 2001 Rules though applicable to the persons engaged on daily wage basis but it provides cut off date being 29th June, 1991 and the petitioner having been engaged on daily wage subsequent thereto, therefore, is also not entitled for regularization under the 2001 Rules. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the parties.;