Special appeal against an order regularizing a Collection Amin in service from a specific date under the UP Regularization Rules. The court held the appeal dismissed as the Rules do not prescribe an age limit for regularization after age relaxation.
The appeal was dismissed; no further relief granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 21
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 483 of 2018
Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Respondent :- Nar Singh Mall Counsel for Appellant :- Anand Kumar Ray Counsel for Respondent :- Awadh Behari Singh
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
This appeal is barred by limitation from 201 days. Ignoring the same, we have examined merits of the case.
This appeal is before us to examine correctness of the order dated 11.12.2017 passed by learned Single Bench accepting Writ-A No. 31326 of 2016.
Under the order impugned, learned Single Bench arrived at the conclusion that respondent-petitioner is to be treated as regularized in service on the post of Collection Amin w.e.f. 20.12.2001 as per provisions of Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Adhoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) (Third Amendment) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 2001").
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that learned Single Bench failed to appreciate that the respondent-petitioner was not entitled to be considered for regularization in service as per the Rules, 2001 and, as such, the direction given by learned Single Bench is apparently bad.
We do not find any merit in the argument advanced.
In brief, facts of the case are that the respondent-petitioner entered in service of respondents being appointed as Collection Amin in District Deoria. Being appointed and while working against the leave vacancy, he was employed on adhoc basis on availability of vacancy due to retirement of one Sri Munraj
Prasad on attaining the age of superannuation. Since then, the respondent-petitioner was continuing in service and came to be retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2012. Prior to that, the Governor of the State while invoking the powers under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India enacted the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Adhoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) (Second Amendment) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1989"). Under the Rules, 1989, an amendment was introduced in Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Adhoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1979"). By this amendment, the persons working on adhoc basis prior to 01.10.1986 were declared entitled for regularization in service. By a Third Amendment, the Rules, 1979 were again subjected to amendment and the persons appointed on adhoc basis on or before 30.06.1998 and continuing in service on the date of commencement of the Rules, 2001, i.e., 20.12.2001 were made entitled for regularization of their services provided they possess requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment at the time of such adhoc appointment.
It is not in dispute that the respondent-petitioner was possessing the requisite qualification at the time of his adhoc appointment as Amin. The only deficiency pointed out by the appellant is that the respondent-petitioner was over-age at the time of his appointment on adhoc basis. The Rules, 1979 as amended from time to time nowhere prescribes any age limit for considering the case for regularization in service. It is further relevant to notice that as per U.P. Collection Amin Service Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1974") read with Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Relaxation of Age Limit for
Recruitment) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1992"), the State Government is empowered to relax the age prescribed for appointment in the relevant Service Rules. In view the fact that the respondent-petitioner was allowed to continue in service till attaining the age of superannuation, it is to be assumed that appellant-respondent relaxed the maximum age limit while considering his case for regularization in service as per provisions of the Rules, 1979 as amended time to time. In view of it, the respondent-petitioner is required to be treated as regular appointee on the post of Amin w.e.f. 20.12.2001, the date on which amendment was introduced in the Rules, 1979.
In view of whatever stated above, no interference with the order impugned is warranted.
The appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.8.2018 Shubham
(Chandra Dhari Singh, J.) (Govind Mathur, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent-petitioner is entitled to regularization in service despite being over-age at the time of adhoc appointment.
Whether the relaxation of age limit empowers the State Government to treat the adhoc appointee as a regular appointee.
Whether the High Court's order granting regularization under the 2001 Rules requires judicial interference.
5 provisions across 4 enactments
State Of U.P.
Nar Singh Mall
Govind Mathur
Chandra Dhari Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
