SUDHIR AGARWAL,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri V.S. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.08.2006 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) whereby the claim of petitioner for regularisation under U. P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 2001") has been rejected by Superintending Engineer, U.P. P.W.D., Allahabad Circle, Allahabad. It is contended that the petitioner was initially engaged as Beldar in U.P. P.W.D. in the year 1989. A seniority list was published of such temporary employees, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, wherein petitioner's name was shown at Serial No. 167 and his date of appointment was shown as December, 1989. Relying thereon, the petitioner claim regularisation under Rules, 2001 and made a representation dated 13.12.2002. When his request was not considered, he approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 18002 of 2003 which was disposed of vide judgement dated 18.05.2006 directing the respondent no. 3 i.e. Superintending Engineer, U.P. P.W.D. Provincial Division, Allahabad to consider the claim of petitioner strictly in accordance with Rules, 2001 and pass appropriate order within three months. It is pursuant to this Court's order that the impugned order has been passed by the Superintending Engineer rejecting claim of petitioner for regularisation. The Superintending Engineer has said that the petitioner was continuously engaged after the cut off date prescribed in Rules, 2001 and not in December, 1989 as his claim was and, therefore, the aforesaid Rules were not applicable to him. He also held that for claiming regularisation under Rules, 2001 existence of vacancy was necessary and in the absence thereof no one can claim regularisation.
(3.) THE respondents have filed counter affidavit denying appointment of petitioner in 1989 and it is also said that the petitioner is not continuously functioning in the department. It further says that the seniority list of district level was amended and published on 10.08.2001 wherein the petitioner's name was at Serial No. 158 and the date of appointment was mentioned as 26.12.1992, therefore, his claim about functioning since 1989 is false. It is also said that the Rules, 2001 are applicable only to the employees of the State Government and not to the field employees of Group 'D'. The respondents have also denied about the appointment of petitioner as daily wager and have said that he was engaged and joined only on 26.12.1992.;