Acharya Narendra Dev University of Agriculture and Technology Thru. Vice Chancellor and Another vs Pawan Kumar Singh and 2 Others

1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:31197-DB

Court No. - 1

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 196 of 2025 Appellant :- Acharya Narendra Dev University Of Agriculture And Technology Thru. Vice Chancellor And Another Respondent :- Pawan Kumar Singh And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Satyanshu Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- Deep Narayan Tripathi,C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

C.M.A No.1 of 2025 (Application for condonation of delay)

¶7

(1) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶8

(2) Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay is sufficient.

¶9

(3) Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the special appeal is hereby condoned.

¶10

Order on Appeal

¶11

(4) Heard Sri Satyanshu Ojha, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri D.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶12

(5) The instant appeal is filed with the following prayer:-

¶13

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 6.2.2025 as corrected on 5.3.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ A No.27833 of 2021, Pawan Kumar Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. and others."

¶14

(6) Facts of the case are that issue related to the regularization of Daily Wage Employees in the Acharya Narendra Dev University of Agriculture & Technology, Kumarganj, Ayodhya (hereinafter to be referred as 'University' ) was adjudicated upon by the Writ Court in a bunch of writ petitions leading case

¶15

2

¶16

being Writ Petition No.4677 (S/S) of 2000 (Merai and Ors Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.). Vide judgment dated 16.4.2002, the bunch of petitions was disposed of with the observation that the University is an educational institution fully aided by the State Government and is engaged in the educational activities in agriculture and other allied sciences, in which, several persons were engaged as daily-rated labourers for various activities and they had completed more than decades of continuous service on daily wage basis. The Court also observed that continuance of the petitioners for such a long period establishes that the work is available in the University and thereafter, the contention of the learned counsel for the University was overruled that a ban on recruitment of Class III & Class IV employees imposed by the State Government for regularization acts as an impediment to grant job security. The Court directed that the University shall frame a scheme for regularization of Class III & IV, who are working on daily wage basis in a phased manner within a period of four months and submit the same before the State Government, on which, decision be taken by State Government within four months. The authorities were also directed to consider for regularization of the petitioners, in accordance with law.

¶17

(7) The order dated 16.4.2002 passed by the writ court in Writ Petition No.4677 (S/S) of 2000 reads as under:-

¶18

"Since the common questions of law and fact are involved in the instant bunch of petitions, they are being disposed of by a common judgment and order.

¶19

The petitioners have alleged in the petition that they are working on daily wage basis for the last more than ten years and till date their services have not been regularised. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the work is available with the opposite parties as the petitioners are continuously working for the last more than ten years and they are entitled for regularisation. Learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon a judgment passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.7942 of 94 Chandra Shekhar Azad Krishi Evam Prodyogic Dainik Wetan Bhogi Karmchari Sangathan and

¶20

3

¶21

others v. The Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture & Technology, Kanpur.

¶22

Sri N.K.Seth, learned counsel for the University submits that the petitioners are engaged on daily wage basis subject to availability of work and as the posts have not been sanctioned by the State Government, the case of the petitioners for regularisation cannot be considered. He further submits that the State Government has also imposed a ban for recruitment of Class III & IV employees and there are no rules for regularisation of the daily wage employees.

¶23

I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

¶24

The Acharya Narendra Dev University of Agriculture & Technology is an educational institution fully aided by the State Government and is engaged in the educational activities in agriculture and allied sciences and humanities and is also prosecuting research in agriculture and other allied sciences. It performs its duties and functions under the statutory provisions and in doing so it engages daily-rated labourers for various activities. There is no dispute that the petitioners have completed ten years' or more continuous service and are working on daily wage basis. The continuance of the petitioners for such a long period establishes that the work is available. The contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that there is ban for recruitment of Class III and Class IV employees imposed by the State Government is of no relevance as the opposite parties have to regularise the services only of the petitioners who have been working continuously for the last more than ten years.

¶25

The writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that the University shall frame a scheme for regularisation of Class III and IV employees, who are working on daily wage basis in a phased manner within a period of four months and submit the same before the State Government, who will consider and take a decision on the scheme submitted by the University within four months thereafter and the opposite parties shall consider the ease of the petitioners for regularisation, in accordance with law, as soon as the posts are sanctioned by the State Government. Till the services of the petitioners are not regularised, the opposite parties shall not make any fresh recruitment on regular basis either on Class-III or Class IV posts and shall pay the minimum of the pay scale of the respective posts on which the petitioners are working. The benefit of this order shall be given only to those daily wage employees who are working at present. In the circumstance there shall be no order as to costs."

¶26

4

¶27

(8) The aforesaid judgment attained finality and the scheme framed by the University was approved by the State Government on 15.12.2003 as " Scheme For Regularization Of The Persons Engaged On Daily Wage Basis On Class IV Posts at Narendra Dev Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vishwavidhyalaya, Kumarganj, Faizabad, 2002 ". In Rule 3 of the aforesaid Scheme, the criteria for regularization is prescribed as any person, who was engaged on daily wage basis in the University before 16.4.1992 and is continuing as such on the date of commencement of this Scheme and possessed requisite eligibility for regular appointment as prescribed in the schedule, at the time of such engagement on daily wage basis, shall be considered for regular appointment on Class IV Post in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available on the date of commencement of this Scheme on the basis of his record and suitability. The aforesaid Scheme reads as under:-

¶28

“1. SHORT TITLE AND COMMENCEMENT

¶29

i. This scheme shall be called the scheme for Regularization of the persons engaged on daily wage basis on Class IV posts at Narendra Deva Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vishwavidhyalaya Kumarganj, Faizabad, 2002.

¶30

ii. This scheme shall come into force from the date it is approved by the State Government.

¶31

2. DEFINITIONS

¶32

i. UNIVERSITY:- Means the Narendra Deva Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vishwavidhyalaya Kumarganj, Faizabad, including its Research and Extension Centres within its jurisdiction as defined in the U.P. Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1958.

¶33

ii. APPOINTING AUTHORITY: In relation to class IV post the appointing authority shall be the Vice Chancellor of the University, as per power conferred upon him under Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vislıwavidyalaya Adhiniyam 1958.

¶34

5

¶35

3. (I) ANY PERSON WHO

¶36

a) Was engaged on daily wage basis in the University before 16.4.1992 and is continuing as such on the date of commencement of this Scheme; and

¶37

b) Possessed requisite eligibility for regular appointment as prescribed in the schedule, at the time of such engagement on daily wage basis, shall be considered for regular appointment on Class IV post in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available on the date of commencement of this scheme, on the basis of his record and suitability.

¶38

(II) In making regular appointments under these rules, reservation for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, other backward classes and other categories, shall be made in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Public Service (Reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act. 1994 as amended from time to time and orders of the Government in force at the time of regularization under these rules.

¶39

(III) For the purposes of Clause 1, the Appointing Authority shall constitute a Selection Committee as per provisions of the statutes in force.

¶40

(IV) The Appointing Authority shall, having regard to the provisions of Clause 1, prepare an eligibility list of the candidates arranged in order of seniority as determined from the date of engagement on daily wages and if two or more persons were engaged together on daily wages, the name of elder person shall be placed above the younger person. The list shall be placed before the Selection Committee along with records pertaining to them as may be considered necessary to assess their suitability.

¶41

(V) The Selection Committee shall consider cases of the candidates on the basis of their records, and if it considers necessary, it may interview the candidates also.

¶42

(VI) The Selection Committee shall prepare a list of selected candidates arranging their names in order of seniority and forward the same to the Appointing Authority.

¶43

4. The Appointing Authority shall subject to provisions of Clause 3 (11), make appointments from the list prepared under Clause 3 (VI) of this scheme in the order in which their names stand in the list.

¶44

6

¶45

5. Appointments made under this scheme shall be deemed to be appointments under the U.P. Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vishwavidhyalaya Adhiniyam, 1958.

¶46

6. (1). A person appointed under this Scheme shall be entitled to seniority only from the date of order of appointment after selection for regularization in accordance with this scheme and shall, in all cases be placed below the persons appointed in accordance with U.P. Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vishwavidhyalaya Adhiniyam, 1958, or as the case may be the regular prescribed procedure, prior to the appointment of such persons under this scheme

¶47

(11). If two or more persons appointed together, their seniority inter se shall be determined in the order mentioned in the order of appointment.

¶48

7. The engagement of a person, on daily wage basis, who is not found suitable, after consideration under this scheme shall be dispensed with and on such termination he shall be entitled to receive one month's wages."

¶49

(9) Despite their eligibility, respondent nos.1 & 2 were not regularized as per the aforesaid regularization scheme on the ground that the cut-off date of engagement as a daily wager for regularization was 16.4.1992. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that the name of the respondent no.1, namely, Pawan Kumar Singh was shown at Sl. No.53 in the eligibility list, whereas, name of respondent no.2 did not find place in the said list though he was engaged in October, 1991.

¶50

(10) Thereafter, the University sent letters dated 24.7.2020 & 4.9.2020 to the State Government seeking approval for regularization of 160 daily wagers by extending the cut off date of engagement. The State Government in response to the aforesaid letters of University, sent a letter dated 21.12.2020 written by the Special Secretary, Department of Agricultural Education & Research Section, Government of U.P., Lucknow whereby, the cut-off date of engagement of daily wage labourers was extended from 16.4.1992 to 31.12.2001 for

¶51

7

¶52

regularization. The letter dated 21.12.2020 of the Special Secretary, State Government, Lucknow is reproduced as under:-

¶53

सं०-1402194/2020/67- -20-1005 (002)/1136/2019 कृश�अि प्रेषक, अनि�ल ढींगरा, नि��ेष सचि��, उत्तर प्रदे� �ास�।

¶54

से�ा में, कुलपचि , आ�ार्य# �रेन्द्र दे� कृनिष ए�ं प्रौधोनिगक नि�श्वनि�द्यालर्य, अर्योध्र्या।

¶55

कृनिष शि�क्षा ए�ं अ�ुसंधा� अ�ुभाग

¶56

लख�ऊः निद�ांक 21/12/2020

¶57

नि�षर्यःकृनिष नि�श्वनि�द्यालर्य, अर्योध्र्या में दैनि�क श्रनिमकों का नि�नि�र्यनिम ीकरण निकर्ये जा�े के संबंध में नि�नि�र्यनिम ीकरण नि�र्यमा�ली की कट ऑफ डेट निद�ांक 16.04.1992 से बढ़ाकर 16.04.2002 निकर्ये जा�े के संबंध में।

¶58

महोदर्य,

¶59

उपर्यु#क्त नि�षर्यक कुलसचि�� कृनिष ए�ं प्रौधोनिगक नि�श्वनि�धालर्य , अर्योध्र्या के पत्र स० -ए�.डी.ए.र्यू.टी-16/नि�०प्र०/2020/594 निद�ांक 24.07.2020 ए�ं पत्र सं० -ए�.डी.ए.र्यू.टी.-16/नि�०प्र०/2020/553 निद�ांक 04.09.2020 का कृपर्या संदभ# ग्रहण कर�े का कष्ट करें , जिजसके द्वारा कृनिष नि�श्वनि�द्यालर्य, अर्योध्र्या में दैनि�क श्रनिमकों का नि�नि�र्यनिम ीकरण निकर्ये जा�े के संबंध में नि�नि�र्यनिम ीकरण नि�र्यमा�ली की कट आफ डेट निद�ांक 16.04.1992 से बढ़ाकर 16.04.2002 fd;s जा�े था नि�श्वनि�धालर्य में कुल 160 दैनि�क श्रनिमक हैं, की सूदो सलग्न कर आ�श्र्यक कार्य#�ाही हे ू उपलब्ध करार्यी गर्यी है।

¶60

2- इस संबंध में मुझे र्यह कह�े का funsZ'k हुआ है निक कार् म िक अ�ुभाग2 की अचिधसू��ा संख्र्या 9/2016/2/1//97/ का -2-2016, निद�ाज 12.09.2016 (छार्याप्रचि संलग्न) के द्वारा प्रख्र्यानिप उत्तर प्रदे� (उत्तर प्रदे� लोक से�ा आर्योग के क्षेत्र बाहर) समूह-ग ए�ं समूह-घ के पदो पर सरकारी नि�भाग में दैनि�फ मजदूरी र्या कार्य# प्रभार र्या संनि�दा पर कार्य# कर रहे व्र्यनिक्तर्यों की नि�नि�र्यनिम ीकरण नि�र्यमा�ली-2016 को प्रस् र-2 (दो) था प्रस् र-6 का नि��ेष रूप से संज्ञा� ले े हुए कट ऑफ डेट निद�ांक 31.12.2001 क नि�र्योजिज dzfedks के नि�नि�र्यनिम ीकरण के संबंध में नि�र्यमा�ुसार अग्रे र कार्य#�ाही सुनि�चिV करा�े का कष्ट करें।

¶61

संलग्नकः र्यथोक्त।

¶62

8

¶63

(11) By means of the Office Memo dated 20.6.2008, the ViceChancellor amended the Regularization Scheme, 2002 by amending para 3(1) (a) of the Rules with the addition that the incumbents who have worked for 240 days in each calendar year, their cases will be considered subject to availability of the posts, suitability on the post and fulfillment of the other provision of the regulation of the scheme. The Office Memo dated 20.06.2008 reads as under:-

¶64

" कारा ्य #लर ज ्य ाप ्ञ

¶65

मा��ीर्य उच्च न्र्यार्यालर्य द्वारा पारिर नि�ण#र्य निद�ांक 16.4.2002 के अ�ुपाल� में �रेन्द्र दे� कृनिष ए�ं प्रौद्योनिगक नि�श्वनि�द्यालर्य, कुमारगंज, फैजाबाद �े दैनि�क श्रनिमकों के नि�नि�र्यनिम ीकरण हे ु नि�नि�र्यनिम ीकरण नि�र्यमा�ली-2002 ब�ार्यी, जिजसको �ास� � �ास�ादे� निद�ांक 15.12.2003 द्वारा अ�ुमोनिद निकर्या।

¶66

मा��ीर्य उच्च न्र्यार्यालर्य के आदे� के अ�ुपाल� में ब�ार्यी

¶67

गर्यी नि�नि�र्यनिम ीकरण नि�र्यमा�ली का प्रस् र-3 नि�म्�� है-

¶68

(I) ANY PERSON WHO

¶69

a) Was engaged on daily wage basis in the University before 16.4.1992 and Is continuing as such on the date of commencement of this Scheme and

¶70

b) Possessed requisite eligibility for regular appointment as prescribed in the schedule, at the time of such engagement on daily wage basis, shall be considered for regular appointment on Class-IV post in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available on the date of commencement of this scheme, on the basis of his record and suitable:

¶71

र्यह निक उपरोक्त नि�र्यमा�ली को र्याचि�का सं. 3068 ए�.एस. 2004 द्वारा दैनि�क श्रनिमकों �े मा��ीर्य उच्च न्र्यार्यालर्य में दाखिखल की। मा��ीर्य उच्च न्र्यार्यालर्य �े उपरोक्त �ाद को अप�े नि�ण#र्य निद�ांक 26.10.2007 द्वारा नि�ण\ कर े हुए अधोखिलखिख प्रानि�धा� निकर्या है:-

¶72

Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. I am of, the, view that the matter requires fresh consideration by the University in light of the various judgments passed by this Court earlier and the Regularization Scheme.

¶73

Accordingly, both the writ petition, are disposed of finally with a direction to the opposite parties/University to adhere to the clauses of the scheme, In particular clause, 3 of the scheme, which has been framed in pursuance to the direction Issued by this Court and In case the petitioners fulfill the criteria, their services shall be

¶74

9

¶75

regularized against the existing vacant posts or as and when the post are available, as the case may be.

¶76

मा��ीर्य उच्च न्र्यार्यालर्य के नि�ण#र्य के अ�ुपाल� में नि�नि�र्यनिम ीकरण नि�र्यमा�ली का पु�ा#�लोक� निकर्या गर्या। सम्र्यक -3 (1 ए ) नि��ारोपरान् नि�र्यमा�ली के प ्र स र ् मे ं सं�ोध� नकर ि ्य ा गर ्य ा। प्रस् र 3 ए नि�म्�र्य ् पढ़ा जार्य।

¶77

Any person who was engaged on daily wages basis in the university on and before 16.4.1992 and is continuing till date and have completed more than ten years on the date of commencement of the scheme and worked for 240 days in the each calendar year as such their case will be considered subject to availability of the post, suitability on the post and fulfillment of the other provision of the regularization of the scheme. "

¶78

उपरोक्त सं�ोध� के अ�ुक्रम में ज्ञानिप निकर्या जा ा है निक समस् दैनि�क श्रनिमक जो निद�ांक 16.4.1992 से पू�# दैनि�क श्रनिमक के रूप में नि�र्योजिज हुए हैं ए�ं निद�ांक 16.4.2002 क. दैनि�क श्रनिमक के रूप में लगा ार कार्य#र रहे हैं था आज भी कार्य#र है , के नि�नि�र्यनिम ीकरण पर उपरोक्ता�ुसार नि��ार निकर्या जार्येगा।

¶79

(12) Submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that since the claim of the respondent nos.1 & 2 was not being considered, they preferred Writ Petition No.15833 (S/S) of 2021, which was disposed of on 27.7.2021 with the direction to the authorities to consider their representation within a period of ten days. However, representation of respondent nos.1 & 2 was also rejected by the appellants vide order dated 5.10.2021. The rejection order dated 5.10.2021 passed by the appellants reads as under :-

¶80

न ि �स ् ारण आदे�

¶81

मा० उच्च न्र्यार्यालर्य में र्योजिज र्याचि�का सं० 15833 (एस. एस) / 2021 प�� कुमार सिंसह � अन्र्य- 1 ब�ाम राज्र्य सरकार � अन्र्य-2 में मा० उच्च न्र्यार्यालर्य इलाहाबाद , खण्डपीठ लख�ऊ द्वारा पारिर अन्तिन् म आदे� निद�ांक 27.7.2021 का प्रमुख अं� नि�म्�� है-

¶82

Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.

¶83

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that with regard in the relief sought in the writ petition, the petitioners may be permitted to submit a representation before the respondent No.2, i.e Acharya Narendra Dev University of Agriculture and Technology, Kumarganj, Ayodhya through its Vice Chancellor which may be directed to be decided within a fixed time frame to which Sri Satyanshu Ojha. learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 2 and 3.

¶84

10

¶85

In view of the above, it is provided that in case the petitioners submit a representation within ten days from today before the respondent No.2 then the respondent No.2 shall endevour to decide the same by means of a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with representation.

¶86

With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of.

¶87

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case Order Date: 27.7.2021

¶88

मा० उच्च न्र्यार्यालर्य के उपरोक्त आदे� के अ�ुपाल� में र्या�ीगण �े निद�ांक 30.07.2021 की आदे� की छार्याप्रचि के साथ प्रत्र्या�ेद� प्रस् ु निकर्या। प्रत्र्या�ेद� पर सम्र्यक नि��ारोपरान् र्यह पार्या गर्या निक र्या�ीगण दैनि�क श्रनिमक हैं और मा० उच्च न्र्यार्यालर्य के नि�ण#र्य निद�ांक 16.4.2002 के अ�ुसार अप�ी से�ाओं का नि�नि�र्यनिम ीकरण �ाह े हैं। मा० उच्च न्र्यार्यालर्य के नि�ण#र्य निद�ांक 16.4.2002 ए�ं 23.7.2002 के अ�ुपाल� में नि�श्वनि�द्यालर्य द्वारा नि�नि�र्यनिम ीकरण नि�र्यमा�ली ब�ाकर �ास� से अ�ुमोनिद करार्यी गर्यी। नि�र्यमा�ली की � g के अ�ुसार पात्र दैनि�क श्रनिमकों की �रिरष्ठ ा सू�ी ब�ाकर �रिरष्ठ ा के अ�ुसार ही समर्य-समर्य पर रिरक्त हो रहे पदों पर नि�नि�र्यनिम ीकरण निकर्या गर्या है।

¶89

र्याचि�का सं० 1814 (एस.एस.) / 2017 ह�ुमा� प्रसाद पाण्डेर्य � अन्र्य ब�ाम राज्र्य सरकार � अन्र्य के साथ बं� 86 र्याचि�काओं में मा० उच्च न्र्यार्यालर्य द्वारा पारिर अन्तिन् म आदे� निद�ांक 15.05.2019 के अ�ुपाल� में नि��ेष सचि�� , कृनिष शि�क्षा ए�ं अ�ुसंधा� अ�ुभाग उ०प्र० �ास�, लख�ऊ के आदे� स० 1402194/2020/67-कृशि�अ-20-1005 (002)/1136/2019 निद�ांक 21.11.2020 के अ�ुसार दैनि�क श्रनिमकों की �ई कट आफ डेट निद�ांक 16.04.1992 से 31.12.2001 क बढाकर नि�नि�र्यनिम ीकरण नि�र्यमा�ली की � g के अ�ुसार ही �रिरष्ठ ा सू�ी ब�ाकर दैनि�क श्रनिमकों का नि�नि�र्यनिम ीकरण निकर्या गर्या है। र्या�ीगण नि�नि�र्यनिम ीकरण नि�र्यमा�ली की � g को पूरा �हीं कर े हैं। अ ए� र्यां�ीगण का नि�नि�र्यनिम ीकरण निकर्या जा�ा नि�र्यमा�ुकूल �हीं है।

¶90

अ ः र्या�ीगण का प्रत्र्या�ेद� निद�ांक 30.07.2021 उपरोक्ता�ुसार नि�स् ारिर निकर्या जा ा है।

¶91

ह० (निबजेन्द्र सिंसह) dqyifr

¶92

(13) It is further submitted that the aforesaid order as well as Office Order dated 20.6.2008 was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.27833 (S/S) of 2021, in which, a counter affidavit was filed by the appellants, wherein the appellants had admitted therein that the amendment made in the Scheme Rule 3(1)(a) does not require any further approval from the State Government in view of the fact that all relevant considerations were already mentioned in the Preamble of the Scheme which was approved by the State Government. Since the aforesaid details were not mentioned in the body of the Scheme, the ViceChancellor vide Office Memo dated 20.06.20008 while clarifying the aforesaid position has amended Rule 3(1)(a).

¶93

11

¶94

(14) Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that learned Single Judge has committed error in rejecting the submissions that since the relevant considerations were made in the Preamble, no approval from the State Government is needed in respect of amendment made in Rule 3(1)(a).

¶95

(15) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 2 submits that it is undisputed fact that respondents came under the zone of consideration in view of the cut off date fixed by State Government vide letter dated 21.12.2020 and Hon'ble Single Judge has rightly considered that once the Scheme was approved including the eligibility clause and if there was any requirement to change the eligibility clause, then the same had to be approved by the State Government, thus, there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶96

(16) Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, we find that the State Government approved the Regularization Scheme on 15.12.2003 containing the eligibility condition mentioned in Clause 3(1) that any person who was engaged on daily wage basis in the University before 16.04.1992 and is continuing as such on the date of commencement of this Scheme, whose date has been re-fixed as 31.12.2001 by the State Government vide its letter dated 21.11.2020. Later on, the eligibility condition has also been amended in Clause 3(1)(a) by the Vice-Chancellor vide Office Memo dated 20.06.2008.

¶97

(17) Admittedly, in the Preamble of Regularization Scheme, 2002, several facts are mentioned including the fact that Regularization Schemes for Class III & IV are to be framed under the Orders of the Writ Court but the Regularization Scheme is framed for the Class IV posts only. Apparently, the facts which were discussed in the Preamble had led to the restricted eligibility conditions in the Regularization Scheme

¶98

12

¶99

which was approved by the State Government. Moreover, the State Government also substituted the cut-off date for the regularization of daily wage workers from 16.4.1992 to 31.12.2001.

¶100

(18) In view of the above facts and discussions, the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants that no approval from the State Government was needed for amending the eligibility clause has no legs to stand, therefore, we find no illegality in the order passed by the Single Judge.

¶101

(19) For the reasons stated above, the Special Appeal lacks merit and same is hereby dismissed .

¶102

[Rajeev Singh, J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.]

¶103

Order Date :- 22.5.2025 GauraV

¶104

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Acharya Narendra Dev University of Agriculture and Technology Thru. Vice Chancellor and Another v. Pawan Kumar Singh and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Acharya Narendra Dev University of Agriculture and Technology Thru. Vice Chancellor and Another v. Pawan Kumar Singh and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Xyz the Complainant of Fir NO.96/2025 vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Health Family Welfare Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and 3 Others vs Amit Kumar and 2 Others

Sunita Nishad and Another Vs Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Allahabad Thru. Registrar and 3 Others

Female Constable Komal Sharma, Pno No. 212431395 vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

U.O.I. Thru. General Manager N.E. Railway Gorakhpur and 3 Others vs Smt. Shakuntala

Manish Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others