Allahabad High Court
Smt. Ranju Srivastava vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 21 February, 2024
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:30299-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 580 of 2022 Appellant :- Smt. Ranju Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vibhu Sinha,Krishna Chandra Sinha,Sunil Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra Connected with Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 581 of 2022 Appellant :- Jay Prakash Narayan Mishra And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Pramod Kumar Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.
1. Learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioners against their discontinuance as Clerks in the Fast Track Courts, established at District Ghazipur in Uttar Pradesh on 5.8.2022. Thus aggrieved, the appellants have preferred these appeals.
2. It is not in issue that fast track courts were created in different districts of the State of Uttar Pradesh. According to the appellant-petitioners, there existed no procedure for making appointment of ministerial staff in such fast track courts, and therefore a circular came to be issued by the Registrar General of this Court on 25.7.2001, which permitted the District Judges to make ad-hoc appointments for specified period, as internal arrangement, for such courts. Clause-III of the circular, which is relied upon, reads as under:-
"III. Where the retired employees are not available or they are otherwise incapable to perform the duties assigned to them, District Judges may proceed to make ad-hoc appointments for specified period and may make internal arrangement by providing experienced personnel to these Fast Track Courts and these ad-hoc appointees may be posted in other courts so as to make these courts more effective and functional."
3. According to the appellants, it is by invoking the authority indicated in the aforesaid circular that all the appellants were appointed on different dates in the year 2001. The appellants also rely upon a subsequent circular issued by the High Court on 15.4.2005 for rehabilitation of Class-III and Class-IV Ex-employees of the abolished fast track courts in various judgeship of the State. According to the appellants, it was pursuant to these circulars that the appellants came to be continued in the employment. It appears that appellants continued in employment till a report came to be submitted by the concerned Administrative Judge, who noticed that appointments were made without following any procedure, and therefore, there existed no selection in the eyes of law. The recommendation of the Administrative Judge, dated 6.11.2006, which is part of the record of the appeal, is extracted hereinafter:-
"Record of other incumbents have also been called for. No process of selection had been undertaken and everything has been dealt with as it was homely affair. No credibility can be attached to the same. Selections/Appointments in subordinate courts are governed by Subordinate Civil Court Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 and U.P. Rules for Recruitment of Ministerial staff of the Subordinate Offices in U.P. Rules, 1950, Qua other incumbents also record has been seen. In fact, there is no selection in the eyes of law. District Judge is directed to take appropriate action qua other incumbents who have been appointed without any advertisement and without following due procedure of law, by issuing show cause notice, and thereafter taking follow up action, within next two months."
4. It is on account of such recommendation of the Administrative Judge that the District Judge, Ghazipur discontinued the engagement of the appellants w.e.f. 16.1.2008. Aggrieved by this order the appellants filed writ petition, which has ultimately been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge has noticed the fact that appointment of appellants was without following any procedure stipulated in law and that subsequent order of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.156 of 2022 (Sunil Kumar Shukla and others Vs. Rajeev Shukla and others) also did not come to the rescue of the appellants.
5. The aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court has been heavily relied upon by the appellants, wherein the Court took note of the fact that engagement of appellants was dispensed w.e.f. 19.3.2018. The Supreme Court enquired as to whether any rules or regulations have been framed for regularization in respect of such employees. Attention of the Court was invited to provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Class-III and Class-IV Employees of Erstwhile Fast Track/Ex-Cadre Court Rules, 2019. The Supreme Court was also informed of the provision contained in Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Adhoc Appointments (on posts outside the purview of the Public Service Commission) (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2021, in which cut off date of 31.12.2001 was specified. The Supreme Court, therefore, directed consideration of claim of such persons for regularization notwithstanding their discontinuance w.e.f. 19.3.2018, particularly as these orders of discontinuance were under challenge before the Court.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants straneously urged that the aforesaid order passed by the Supreme Court on 5.1.2022 applies with equal force to the case of the appellants, since they were similarly placed as appellants in Civil Appeal No.156 of 2022, and therefore their case also merited consideration for regularization.
7. Learned counsel for the High Court, on the other hand, points out that neither the appointment of appellants were made by following any transparent procedure nor the appellants otherwise had acquired entitlement to regularization in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Adhoc Appointments (on posts outside the purview of the Public Service Commission) (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2021. It is, therefore, submitted that since appointment of the appellants was without following any due process, therefore, the appellants are not entitled for any relief.
8. We have heard Sri Pramod Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Bushra Maryam, learned counsel for the High Court, and have perused the materials brought on record.
9. From the materials placed on record, it is not shown that any transparent procedure had been followed for appointing the appellants as Class-III employees in the Fast Track Courts at Ghazipur. The Administrative Judge in his report has categorically noticed that the procedures otherwise contemplated in the Civil Court Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 and the U.P. Rules for Recruitment of Ministerial Staff of the Subordinate Offices in U.P. Rules, 1950 had not been followed. It does not appear that either any vacancy was notified nor other eligible persons were given any opportunity to compete against the posts. The initial engagement of the appellants, therefore, is not consistent with the fair process, otherwise required to be followed for appointment to the services of the State. The circular issued by the Registrar General permitting the District Judge to make appointment, as stop gap arrangement, would not confer any right upon the appellants to continue indefinitely. The circular only enabled the District Judge to make stop gap arrangement and no right of continuance could be claimed on its basis. The appellants otherwise have not been able to show that their case for regularization has matured under any applicable provisions in the service rules.
10. So far as the order passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.156 of 2022 is concerned, the appellants therein had continued for almost 17/18 years when their engagement was discontinued. The length of working of the appellants is much less in comparison to the appellants before the Supreme Court. The appellants, therefore, cannot claim parity with the appellants before the Supreme Court.
11. Law is otherwise settled that regularization can be granted only in accordance with law [see:- Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1]. We are also informed that Special Appeal No.574 of 2022 arising out of the judgment under challenge has already been dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 6.9.2022.
12. Considering the nature of their appointment as also the fact that in law, the appellants are not entitled to any regularization. We find no error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
13. Special appeals, accordingly, are dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.2.2024 Anil (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.)