HONBLE ABDUL MOIN,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondents.
(2.) The petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 03.07.2015, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, passed by respondent no.2 is before this Court. By the said order, the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Instructor, Mechanic (Radio and T.V.) in ITI has been rejected. A further prayer is for a mandamus commanding the respondents to continue the petitioner on the post of Instructor, Mechanic Electronics, as per letter dated 13.01.2015, a copy of which is Annexure-6 to the petition.
(3.) The case set forth by the petitioner is that in terms of appointment order dated 12.11.1991, a copy of which is part of Annexure-2 to the petition, the petitioner was appointed as a Daily Wage Instructor (Radio and T.V.). Vide office order dated 18.11.1991, the joining of the petitioner was permitted, a copy of which is part of Annexure-2 to the petition. It is contended that the petitioner continued to work on daily wage basis and he was to be considered for regularization in accordance with regularization rules but the respondents failed to consider him for regularization. When his case was not considered for regularization, the petitioner was constrained to file a Writ Petition No.6726 (SS) of 2001 in re: Amrish Agarwal vs. State of U.P. and others . This Court vide judgment and order dated 03.12.2003, a copy of which is Annexure-3 to the petition, disposed of the writ petition holding that the petitioner is entitled to minimum of the pay scale of Class III employee without any increments and other allowances. It was further directed that the question of petitioner's regular absorption will be considered in accordance with the rules in case he comes within the field of eligibility of the same. It is contended that the respondents filed a Special Appeal against the said judgment which was subsequently dismissed. Thus, the judgment and order dated 03.12.2003 has attained finality. The respondents instead of considering the case of the petitioner for regularization terminated his services vide order dated 02.09.2011, a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The termination order indicated that the services of the petitioner were being dispensed with as the post of Instructor (Radio and T.V) has been abolished. Being aggrieved with the termination order, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.6324 (SS) of 2011 in re: Amrish Agarwal vs. State of U.P. and others , which was disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 29.05.2015, a copy of which is Annexure-7 to the petition, whereby this Court while upholding the order of termination directed the respondents to consider re-engagement of the the petitioner on the post restored to the establishment of respondent no.3 on the same terms and conditions as on date of termination order dated 02.09.2011, if service of such person is required by respondent no.3. The respondents thereafter passed the impugned order dated 03.07.2015 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for being appointed on the ground that in terms of order dated 04.07.2014 the post of Instructor (Radio and T.V.) has been abolished and as the trade is no longer available in ITI consequently the petitioner cannot be appointed. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present petition has been filed.;