U.C. Srivastava, J. - (1.) The petitioner Inamuddin Siddiqui was a stenographer in the U.P. Public services Tribunal and whose Services have been terminated, filed two writ petitions, and other writ petition has been filed by U.P. Lucknow Sewa Adhikaran Tritiya Shreni Karamchari Sangh being writ petition No. 5512 of 1985 praying for issue of a writ of mandamus or direction to the opposite parties to comply with the report of the Section Committee, constituted under the provisions of the ad-hoc Appointment Regularisation Rules, 1983 and regularise the petitioners in accordance thereto. Writ Petition No. 5512 of 1985 filed by U.P. Lok Sewa Adhikaran Tritiya Shreni Karamehari Sangh referred to above it has also been prayed that the opposite parties may be directed to send back the deputatitonists to their parent departments. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 6103 of 1985 praying for quashing the orders dated 28/29/10/1985, 16-10-1985 and 19-10-1985, contained in Annexures 14, 15 and 16 respectively i. e. the confirmation of three deputationists and direction to the State Government for abolishing the post of Stenographer with the Presenting Officer, attached to the Public Services Tribunal, and the order by which his services were terminated as temporary employee in view of the fact that the post has been abolished.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Stenographer (English) attached to the judicial member of the Public Services Tribunal vide order dated 6-10-1980. His attachment was contained in the appointment order which initially was only for a period of two months but he continued to work as such thereafter also. The appointment was made after the petitioner was required to appear in shorthand and typing test in English in which he was declared successful. There were certain other stenographers working in the Public Services Tribunal who also included those who had come on deputation from other departments and those who were also working with the Presenting Officers. The stenographers who were working with the Judicial Members or with the Presenting Officers were in the same pay-scale. After the report of Second Pay Commission a distinction was made between the stenographers, attached, with the Judicial Members and those attached with the Presenting Officers of the Tribunal, and as a result of the report. The senior stenographers were permitted to work with the Judicial Members while juniors were allowed to work with the Presenting Officers. The pay-scale of stenographers attached with the Judicial Members was upgraded. It was thereafter that the petitioner was ordered to with the Presenting Officer vide order dated 1.6.1982 and was placed in a lower grade. The Judicial Member, Public Services Tribunal requested the Chairman to reconsider the case of the petitioner who was found to be very efficient and capable. Against the order the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition which was dismissed by this Court with the observation that it was desirable that regular selection be made on the basis of comparative merits from amongst the stenographers so that senior may be attached with the Judicial Members and others with the Presenting Officers and the Court also rejected the apprehension of the petitioner that regular selection may not take placed. This order was a passed on 14.4.1983 and it not in dispute that despite such observations were made in the judgment but no regular selection has taken place up till now. In the year 1981 proceedings for regularisation ad-hoc employees were started by the Chairman of the Tribunal and the Chairman of Tribunal No. 1 Strongly recommended the case of the petitioner mentioning therein that he was the fastest steno - typist in the tribunal, but the petitioner was not regularised. After coming into force of U.P. Regularisation of ad-hoc Appointment Rules, 1983, fresh steps for regularisation were initiated and a selection committee was was constituted. The selection committee also recommended the case of the petitioner for regularisation as he was found eligible on all counts, but even then he was not regularised oui view order dated 20.4.1985 he was required to appear in a test of Hindi and English short hand and Typing. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved from the direction requiring him to appear in such a test, filed writ petition in this court in which an interim order was passed defecting the Public Services Tribunal not to take test from the petitioner. One Anis Ahmad appeared in the test and he was regularised. At that time three stenographers were working with the Presenting Officers while two posts were lying vacant and these three stenographers included the petitioner, the said Anis Ahmad and one other, were regularised, It will be relevant to note that the Pay Commission did not recommend for having bilingual stenographers but provided for extra - allowance to bilingual stenographers which in fact was given to two stenographers who were working in the tribunal though not to the petitioner who was not a bilingual stenographer and did not apply for any such allowance. Vide Government Order dated 3-9-1982 five posts of stenographers attached to the Presenting Officers were abolished. The Inspector of Officers while recommending abolition of five posts, recommended for creation of thirteen new posts including that of five typists, three stenographers and five Private Secretaries and out of these thirteen posts only seven new posts were created which included the posts of typists also. By the said G.O. the new posts of stenographers were also created. Against the said new post the said Anis Ahmad and Kamini Misra who as ad-hoc employee was junior to the petitioner, were appointed. Twelve persons were working on deputation out of whom there were stenographers and despite protest and opposition these stenographers who were on deputation for more than five years were absorbed, "it is really regrettable that the Chairman of tribunal, a very senior officer who has filed his own affidavit, has stated therein that they were transferred to various Government departments even though Public Services Tribunal was a statutory body and not a department of Government", as such the petitioner has contended that one of the stenographers was Hindi Stenographer only and the other two were not bilingual yet they were absorbed. "One Geeta Mani who was also stenographer and was at No. 6 in the list in which the petitioner who was at No. 9 resigned in the year 1982 from service but subsequently she was again appointed afresh on 20.8.82 on regular and temporary basis and was attached to the Judicial Member even though her appointment was afresh from 20.8.82 and she became junior to the petitioner and was not attached to the Presenting Officer but to the Judicial Member from which post the petitioner who was appointed as English Stenographer to judicial member was reverted and attached to the Presenting Officer". It appears that neither she was reverted nor attached with the Presenting Officer and her services too were not terminated. The result of abolition of posts Was that all the five posts of Stenographers which includes three deputationists were filled in and the petitioner became surplus but he continued to work and was allowed to do so in anticipation that one post will be sanctioned but at section for the post was not accorded his services were terminated. The ground appears to be that he was not duly qualified for the post of stenographers as he was not bilingual and also did not appear in the test for which he obtained on interim order from this court so far he is concerned. It has been stated on behalf of the opposite parties in counter affidavit any rules regarding appointment of stenographers but the rules which are applicable in Government Officers in this behalf have been followed. There is no averment that at any stage any such decision was taken by the Public Services Tribunal in the matter of Stenographers and such and practice has been faithfully followed. The way in which appointment and absorption were made in the Tribunal as has been stated earlier indicates that in this behalf consistency was not adhered to and rule of conclnience and preference, as the case may be, was also followed. It would further be seen that apart from taking the test in regard to which there was a written order passed by this court in favour of the petitioner, no other test for stenographers was taken. These who were not bilingual stenographers and came on deputation were also absorbed. Their continuation for more than five years and their absorption too was in conformity with the fundamental rules and the rules applicable to the Government servant in the matter. They were absorbed despite the report of the Registrar of the Tribunal that they were illegally continuing and the combined seniority list including their names was illegally prepared and they cannot be absorbed". The petitioner who was specifically appointment as English Stenographer, a language which is still pregailant ' in the Public Services Tribunal and was attached with the Judicial Member and not with the Presenting Officer was first reverted and then terminate despite the fact that he was fastest stenographer and was highly praised and recommended for absorption and appointment. The petitioner having completed five years service his regularisation should have been considered. The regularisation should not have been postponed on the ground of uncertain presumption or qualification of being bilingual stenographer or any rule applicable elsewhere but not followed faithfully in the Public Services ' Tribunal. One Anis Ahmad who was subsequently regularised may because they qualified in test was earlier junior to him in the hierarchy of stenographers and so was the case with Kamini Misra who too was appointed against one of the posts out of two created by the G.O. referred to above. The petitioner was pushed down in the service ladder again and when got opportunity again to go up the same was blocked with the result that it was he who was sexed on the abolition of posts of five stenographers and was not accommodated even one newly created post through not strictly of stenographer which yet were not created despite simulations recommendations. The posts which were abolished were not the posts against which the petitioner was initially appointed and continued for about three years with the judicial member as English Stenographer. The abolition of post is obviously subject to judicial review as well as also held in K. Rajendran v. State, AIR 1982 SC 1117. The abolition of post of Stenographer cannot be assailed successfully on the ground of mala-fides or extraneous consideration but the appointments, regularisation and confirmation before and after the abolition of post were not done in quite conformity with the legal requirements and fairness. The continuation of opposite parties 4,5 and 6 on deputation post continuously for five years, absorption in higher grade without confirmation in lower grade and non - sending any of these to parent department was not quite legal but now after absorption and confirmation, their appointments need, no interference but at the same time any other person is not to buffer. The petitioner was wrongly not considered for regularisation and thrown out of service on the ground of abolition of one post. He could have been for the time being retained on a newly created post of typist as he was a typist too.
(3.) In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed to the extent mentioned below. In view of the fact that the petitioners services were subsequently terminated, against which the petitioner has filled writ petition No. 3382 of 1985, has become infructious and is to be dismissed as such. Similarly as posts have been abolished and the deputationists have already been absorbed despite legal objections and protest and confirmed, the said question also being under consideration in the other Writ Petition, Writ Petition No. 5512 of 1985 has also become infructuous and is to be dismissed as such. "Writ Petition No. 6103 of 1985 is allowed and the termination order dated 10th October 1985 terminating the services of the petitioner, a copy of which has been annexed to the Writ Petition as Annexure 16, is quashed and a writ of mandamus is issued to the opposite parties 1 to 3 to consider the question of petitioner's regularisation since when he became eligible for it in view of completion of prescribed period of 3 years of service and: (a) to appoint the petitioner to the post of the Stenographer if any person junior to him has been appointed as such ignoring his claim and case wither by creating a post or otherwise; (b) till the petitioner is not duly appointed to the post of stenographer, appoint him against any newly created post like Typist and others and place him in service heicrarchy over his juniors. There will be no order as to cost." Petition allowed.;