SUDHIR AGARWAL,J. - (1.) THE petitioner's claim for regularization has been rejected by the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Provincial Division Ist, District Mau by the impugned order date 7.2.2007 on the following two grounds : 1. He was engaged for sometime in 1987 but on 29.6.1991 or prior thereto, he was not continuously engaged.
(2.) NO vacancy, permanent or temporary, is available in the District. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since he was engaged as daily wage employee since1987, i.e., prior to 29.6.1991 and was working even after commencement of the rules, therefore, it could not have been said that he was not eligible to be considered for regularization. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is illegal and liable to be set aside. Having perused the record, I find that one of the reasons given by the Executive Engineer is that no temporary or permanent post is available in the District against which the petitioner could have been regularized. In the entire writ petition, there is no averment whatsoever that this statement of fact recorded by the respondent no. 2 in the impugned order is incorrect, false or contrary to record. Nothing has been said about the vacancy, in the writ petition. U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "2001 Rules") are not applicable to future vacancies and it is a one time arrangement.
(3.) RULE 4 of 2001 Rules provides that the Rules are applicable to those vacancies, temporary or permanent, which are vacant on the date of commencement of 2001 Rules.;