SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THREE contentions have been raised in this petition by the learned counsel Mr. Bhandari for the petitioners:- (1) The learned Tribunal has committed an error in accepting the original application filed by the original applicant and directed the present petitioners to regularise his services on the post of Assistant Superintendent with effect from 28. 2. 85 and grant him actual financial benefits of pay fixation when the original applicant failed to pass suitable test. (2) Against the original applicant, number of ACRs were there between 1985 to 1999 and actually he was punished in 1999, therefore, such a person cannot be given regularisation. (3) There was a mistake on the part of Union of India in regularising the services of Mohan Singh and Sadanand on the post of Assistant Superintendent, therefore, such a mistake cannot be allowed to be perpetuated by regularising the services of the applicant.
(2.) FROM the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, it is clear that the Tribunal has extended the benefit of regularisation to the original applicant on the ground that the junior to the applicant namely, Mohan Singh and Sadanand, were regularised in view of the subsequent letter dated 17. 11. 94/9. 12. 94 which was also reproduced by the Tribunal in its order. Merely submitting that it was a mistake on their part is of on consequence. The fact remained that though Mohan Singh and Sadanand have not passed the eligibility test, they were extended the benefit of regularisation in service. If that is so, then there was no reason for the present petitioners not to extend the benefit of regularisation to the original applicant. Two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court were cited by learned counsel Mr. Bhandari for the petitioners:- (1) State of Orissa vs. Dr. Pyari Mohan Mishra (1) (2) State of Rajasthan vs. Mahendra Kumar Thanvi (2) These judgments have no relevance or application to the facts of the present case, therefore, we have considered them in detail. In case of Mahendra Kumar Thanvi (supra), the facts were that he was allowed the minimum pay of pay scale of post of regular L. D. C. on the ground of equal pay for equal work and his case was directed to be considered for regularisation. On facts of that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a candidate for appointment on the said post was required to pass the examination conducted by the Commission.
(3.) IN case of Dr. Pyari Mohan (supra), the petitioner was an ad hoc appointee for a long period and on facts of that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that merely because he remained on ad hoc basis, that would not entitle him for regularisation. At the cost of repetition, we may state that in the instant case, the Tribunal has allowed the application filed by the original applicant on this ground. The Tribunal has considered the fact that after 1993 when the original applicant failed to pass the eligibility test, in 1994 two persons junior to him were extended the benefit of regularisation, then in such type of cases, there was no reason to deny him the same benefit. In our considered opinion, the learned Tribunal was right in holding the same because if such benefits are not extended to the original applicant, then it would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. ;