- (1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. As requested by learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken for hearing at the admission stage and is being disposed of accordingly. The petitioner Imtiaz Ahmad has approached this Court by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 25-6-1998 passed by District Magistrate, Sant Ravidas Nagar rejecting his application for absorption in the Collectorate on the ground that being an employee engaged on contract basis in census department, he cannot be absorbed and there is no justification for his absorption.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner was engaged as Checker from 1-4- 1981 to 21-9-1981, as Supervisor from 22-10-1981 to 21-3-1982, and again as Checker since 30-6-1982 to 1-7-1982 in Regional Census Office, Varanasi. Again when the next census proceedings commenced, by order dated 31-1-1990, he was appointed on purely temporary basis till 29-2-1990 but the said arrangement however continued till 31st May, 1991. Then he was appointed for the period of 13-6-1991 to 31-10- 1991 but here again he continued upto 31-12-1991 whereafter he was terminated on account of reduction of staff in the establishment/winding up of the Regional Census Office. The petitioner claimed that being a retrenched employee he was entitled for regularization and made representation on 6-8-1994 to the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi requesting for absorption under the U. P. Government (Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government Companies Employees Service) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as '1991 Rules' ). It is said that the District Magistrate issued letter dated 31-8-1996 recommending absorption of a few other retrenched employees and the petitioner, therefore, also claim for the same treatment. However, his request was not considered despite several reminders whereafter he approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 16136 of 1998 which was finally disposed of on 12-5-1998 directing the District Magistrate, Sant Ravidas Nagar to consider petitioner's representation and dispose of by a speaking order within two months pursuant whereto, the District Magistrate has rejected his representation by the order impugned in this writ petition. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit stating that the employees of census department were only allowed certain relaxations in age etc. but there was no provision made for their regular employment in any other department of the State Government and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for his absorption in class-Ill post of Collectorate, Sant Ravidas Nagar and his application has rightly been rejected. The petitioner in the rejoinder-affidavit has annexed a copy of the Government Order dated 22-4- 1987 issued in respect to employment of retrenched employees of census department in class-Ill and class-IV posts of the State Government and claimed that pursuant to the aforesaid Government Order, he was entitled for absorption in the class-Ill post.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that he was a retrenched employee of the census department and, therefore, entitled for regular employment in class-Ill service and the District Magistrate has failed to consider his claim correctly and in accordance with law, though in the similar circumstances some other persons have been absorbed but the petitioner has been discriminated which is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. It is not disputed that in certain broken spells as and when census operations were undertaken by the Government of India, the petitioner was engaged in the census department from time to time. The aforesaid appointment was purely temporary and therefore, after completion of the work or due to reduction in the establishment of census department, he was terminated or discontinued whereagainst no grievance was raised by the petitioner at any point of time. His claim is now confined to regular appointment under the State Government considering his status as a "retrenched employee". For the purpose of the present case, even if the petitioner is treated to be a retrenched employee, learned Counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any statutory provision or executive order having force of law entitling the petitioner for regular appointment in a class-Ill or class-IV post under the State Government. The Government Order dated 22-4-1987 placed on record as Annexure-1 to the rejoinder affidavit shows that the Census Directorate, Government of India communicated to all the Head of Departments, District Magistrates and other employment officers in the State of U. P. that the employees who have worked in the Census Department for about three and half years in 1981 census operations and some of them have crossed maximum age required for employment in the Government service and, therefore, they were allowed relaxation of three years in the age vide Government Order No. 41/2/1967-Karmik-2, dated 13-2-1985 extended upto 12-2-1988, and therefore, the said persons may be considered in the service of the State Government extending the said relaxation in age. The aforesaid order, therefore, only provides relaxation in maximum age but nowhere shows that the process of recruitment applicable to class-III and class-IV posts in the State of U. P. shall not be followed for appointment of the said retrenched employees of the census department. Moreover, a bare reading of the aforesaid Government Order shows that it is applicable to such employees who continuously worked for three and half years pursuant to 1981 census and were retrenched on 30-6-1984. On the contrary, the petitioner was engaged for short periods in 1981 and 1982 only, but there is no continuous service of three and half years as contemplated in the aforesaid Government Order. Hence, in no circumstance the said Government Order help the petitioner in any manner. In the State of U. P. , recruitment to class-Ill posts prior to 1989 was being governed by the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1975 which were substituted by another set of rules on 16-3-1985, i. e. , U. P. Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985 which continued to hold field until substituted in their entirety by U. P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group "c" Posts (Outside the Purview of the U. P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2001. In all the aforesaid Rules, there is no provision for appointment of a retrenched employee without undergoing the process of recruitment. Only certain concessions in the matter of age and educational qualifications etc. have been provided but otherwise a retrenched employee has to participate in the process of recruitment with other eligible candidates as and when the recruitment process is initiated. In the matter of selection and assessment of merit under 2001 Rules, certain weightage is provided but there is no provision for regularization of such employees to the exclusion of regular process of recruitment. In view of the statutory rules, no relief can be granted to the petitioner contrary thereto.;