Mahesh Grover, J. - (1.) The appellant questions the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17.9.2015. To briefly note the facts he was appointed as a Clerk in the year 1995. Rules of 1965 which were prevalent envisaged that for a post belonging to a clerical cadre a person is to be a matriculate if he was to be considered for direct recruitment to the post.
(2.) Learned Single Judge has mis-read the Appendix A by observing as follows:- "Appendix 'A' of the 1965 Rules prescribes the method of recruitment of the post of Head Clerk [post of Clerk is not enumerated]. The essential qualifications for the post of Head Clerk in direct recruitment under the 1965 Rules are as follows:- "(i) Graduate of a recognised university A Degree in Commerce or with Mathematics, or experience of accounts work in a Government office or in the office of a Local Authority will be preferred ; or (ii) Intermediate or its equivalent with 2 years' clerical experience in a Government office or in the office of a Local Authority ; or (iii) Matriculate with 4 years' clerical experience in a Government office or in the office of a Local Authority." We are thus of the opinion that the finding on the educational qualifications being a hurdle in the way of the appellant for appointment to the post of Clerk may not be sustainable. We may extract the relevant rule for ready reference:- Appendix A JUDGEMENT_103_LAWS(P&H)8_2016.html
(3.) However, we cannot persuade ourselves to disagree with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that appointment of the appellant was a back door entry and not in accordance with the recognised mode of public appointment, thereby, dis-entitling him to the benefit of reentry into service or regularisation in terms of Uma Devi's case as also the subsequent judgment in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana reported as 2009(3) S.C.T. 39 : (2009) 8 SCC 556;