Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) Through this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.12.2014 by means of which the petitioner's claim for regularization with effect from the date of his initial appointment as claimed in the writ petition has not been found to be valid and therefore, the petitioner has been regularized with effect from 29.12.2014 i.e. the date of passing the order on the recommendation of the Selection Committee.
(3.) The facts in short giving rise to the present petition are that father of the petitioner Late Narendra Deo Sharma, who was working on the post of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, expired on 3.1.1987 as a consequence thereof the petitioner was given appointment on adhoc basis as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) on 7.5.1987 on compassionate grounds. A consequential order was issued by opposite party no.2 appointing the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.850-1720. On 26.7.1988, the petitioner applied for selection to be conducted by the U.P. Public Service Commission (for short "the UPPSC") for the examination proposed to be held in 1988 through his application dated 26.7.1988. Application of the petitioner was duly recommended and forwarded by the Engineer-In-Chief (Mechanical), Irrigation Department vide letter dated 8.8.1988 to the UP Public Service Commission for allowing the petitioner to appear in the examination of 1988. The petitioner was required to submit a reply/ explanation as to why he has not acted to comply with the direction issued in the letter of appointment and that is why the petitioner's services should not be terminated vide letter dated 27.3.1992. The petitioner submitted reply to the said letter on 11.4.1992. The period of service of the petitioner was extended on 4.9.1992 with the identical rider that the petitioner would have to clear the examination conducted by the UPPSC. On 1.10.1997, the UPPSC notified the recruitment of general/special category candidates for the said Mechanical Services Examination, 1997 advertising 28 posts. The petitioner again applied in pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement for being selected on the post of Assistant Engineer through the Commission. The petitioner made a request to the Commission vide letter dated 24.12.1997 to allow him to appear in the examination. Opposite party no.2 again requested the Commission to allow the petitioner to appear in the examination to be held in pursuance of the advertisement issued on 1.10.1997 vide letter dated 16.1.1998. The petitioner was informed by the Commission in respect of the age limit fixed in the advertisement vide letter dated 17.1.1998 that he has become overage and he cannot be called for interview. Services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 24.9.1999. The petitioner assailed the aforesaid order of termination by filing writ petition before this Court numbering 1720 (S/B) of 1999, Abhishek Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others. The petitioner made a representation to the authorities apprising them about the order of the High Court passed in the case of Mukesh Kumar Chaturvedi and prayed that his case may also be considered in the light of the direction issued in Mukesh Kumar Chaturvedi's case. The representation preferred by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 7.8.2006. The petitioner challenged the order dated 7.8.2006 in the pending Writ Petition No.1720 (S/B) of 1999 by amending the same. This Court allowed the writ petition quashing the termination order dated 24.9.1999 and the order passed on the representation dated 7.8.2006 with a further direction to the State Government to consider regularization of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Regularization Rules, 2001 as has been done in the case of Mukesh Kumar Chaturvedi after giving relaxation in age. The petitioner represented the authorities to regularise his services in the light of the direction issued by this Court vide order dated 20.8.2013. Services of the petitioner have been regularized on the recommendation of the Selection Committee from the date of passing the order i.e. 29.12.2014. The aforesaid order has been put to challenge by way of the present writ petition.;