Allahabad High Court
State Of U P And 2 Others vs Bhairav Nath Singh And 3 Others on 10 April, 2025
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52695-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1120 of 2024 Appellant :- State Of U P And 2 Others Respondent :- Bhairav Nath Singh And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Abhishek Srivastava,Tej Bhanu Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Kartikeya Saran Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, dated 01.08.2024 whereby previous order of the authority rejecting claim of regularization of the respondents - petitioners has been set aside and a direction has been issued to accord afresh consideration to the claim of the respondents-petitioners. Paragraph nos.22 to 28 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge reads as under:
"22. From the aforesaid averments made in the counter affidavit, it appears that the respondents admit that the Guest Lecturers were appointed to perform the duties of Instructor according to the provisions contained in U.P. Government Industrial Training Institute (Instructors) Service Rules, 2014.
23. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that Rule 2 (iii) of the Rules of 2016 provides that the rules shall not apply for regularization of persons/persons engaged/employed/deployed on consolidated pay/fixed honorarium in the Schemes/projects of State Government or Government of India sponsored programmes.
24. In this regard, it is apparent from the record that initially by means of an order dated 30.08.2000, the State Government had launched Prashikshan Mitra Scheme under which the petitioners were appointed as Prashikshan Mitra, which Scheme was for a period of one year only i.e. 2000-2001 and it came to end thereafter. Then the State Government issued another Government Order dated 30.05.2001 for engagement of Guest Lecturers for a period of one year. This Scheme of engagement of Guest Lecturers was extended by means of a Government Order dated 10.05.2002 to the period ending on 30.06.2002. Thereafter this Scheme has not been extended. Therefore, when the petitioners are not working under any Scheme since 01.07.2002 and they do not fall within the exception carved out within Rule 2 (iii) of Rules of 2016.
25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners claim for being considered for regularization of their services under the Government Order dated 24.2.2016 / the Rules of 2016 has wrongly been rejected on the ground that they are not covered by the Government Order. The petitioners are entitled to be considered for being regularized under the provisions of Government Order dated 24.2.2016 / the Rules of 2016.
26. Accordingly, all the writ petitions bearing Writ- A No.38333 of 2016, Writ- A No.40833 of 2016, Writ-A No.44315 of 2016, Writ- A No.51565 of 2016 and Writ- A No.8507 of 2024 are hereby allowed.
27. The impugned order dated 24.05.2016 in Writ A No.38333 of 2016, order dated 13.6.2016 in Writ-A No.40833 of 2016 and orders dated 24.5.2016 and 23.06.2016 in Writ- A No.8507 of 2024 passed by the Secretary, Vocational Education and Skill Development Department, State of U.P. are unsustainable in law and are hereby quashed.
28. A mandamus is issued to the respondent No.1- Secretary, Vocational Education and Skill Development, State of U.P. to pass fresh orders regarding regularization of services of the petitioners, after taking into consideration the merit of the claim of each individual petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Till a final order is passed in the matter, the petitioners shall be allowed to continue to remain in service and will be paid their salaries regularly."
Learned State Counsel argues that initial appointment of the respondents-petitioners was as Prashikshan Mitra for the purpose of one year under a particular scheme and, therefore, the Government Order dated 24.02.2016 providing for regularization will not be applicable. It is also the case of the State Counsel that the Government Order dated 24.02.2016 will otherwise not be applicable on educational institutions.
So far as the first contention is concerned, we find that the learned Single Judge has taken note of correct facts and a direction for consideration has been issued after taking into consideration the fact that though initial appointment was under State scheme but they have been continuing as such since 2002 as employees of the organization without reference to any scheme as such.
Learned counsel for the respondents - petitioners has also placed reliance upon subsequent regularization Rules framed by the State Government on 12.09.2016, wherein the State Government has clarified as to in which nature of employment it will not be applicable. Clause 1 and 2 of the Regularization Rules, 2016, notified on 12.09.2016 providing for exclusion reads as under:
(i) Seasonal Collection Ameen/Seasonal Peon;
(ii) Person/Persons engaged/employed/deployed for seasonal works in Horticulture Department, Agriculture Department, Agriculture Education Department and such similar Departments."
Learned State Counsel has not been able to highlight any of the Clause occurring in Rule 2, which alone is exempted from applicability of Regularization Rules, 2016. Once that be so, we find that direction of the learned Single Judge to accord consideration to the respondents - petitioners' claim is inkeeping with the State policy for regularization. To what extent, claim of the respondents - petitioners is covered under the Rules is left open for examination.
In such view of the matter, we find no force in the appeal filed by the State, which consequently fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.4.2025 rkg