Uttarakhand High Court
Anshu Gupta vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 17 May, 2019
Author: Manoj K. Tiwari
Bench: Manoj K. Tiwari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2480 of 2017
Anshu Gupta ... Petitioner
Vs
State of Uttarakhand & others ... Respondents
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2434 of 2017
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2463 of 2017
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2464 of 2017
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2465 of 2017
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2466 of 2017
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2467 of 2017
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2468 of 2017
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2470 of 2017
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2471 of 2017
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2472 of 2017
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2474 of 2017
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2478 of 2017
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2479 of 2017
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2482 of 2017
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2483 of 2017
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2484 of 2017
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2485 of 2017
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2486 of 2017
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2487 of 2017
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2488 of 2017
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2489 of 2017
Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, all these petitions are clubbed together and are being heard & decided by a common judgment. However, for the sake of convenience, facts of WPSS No. 2480 of 2017 are being considered.
3. Petitioner was appointed as Staff Nurse on contract basis after due selection in the year 2009 and she is thereafter serving continuously in Veer Chandra Singh Garhwali Government Medical Science & Research Institute, Srinagar, Pauri Garhwal (in short 'Institute'). According to the petitioner, there is no adverse material against her and her work and conduct has been found to be above board. Grievance of the petitioner is that her claim for regularization is not being considered, while other similarly situate persons serving in the 2 same Institute, who were also appointed on contract basis, have been regularized by means of separate orders issued in the month of January, 2017.
4. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel submits that other contractual employees, serving in the said Institute, were regularized in terms of Regularisation Rules, 2013, as amended vide notification dated 14.12.2016, whereby cut-off-date fixed in the 2013 Rules was extended from 30.12.2008 to 31.12.2011. He further submits that petitioner are similarly situate as the persons, who were regularized in terms of amendment made in the Rules in 2016. However, he submits that before claim of the petitioner could be considered for regularization, the amendment Rules of 2016 were stayed by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.01.2017 passed in WPSS No. 154 of 2017 and WPSS No. 155 of 2017. He, therefore, submits that in view of the interim order passed by coordinate Bench of this Court, the process of regularization could not be completed. Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned C.S.C. further submits that subsequently, WPSS No. 154 of 2017 and WPSS No. 155 of 2017 were allowed by coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 17.04.2018 and the notification dated 14.12.2016 was quashed.
5. Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on para 26 & 27 of the judgment dated 17.04.2018 passed in WPSS No. 154 of 2017 and WPSS No. 155 of 2017, which are extracted below:-
"26. A reference here of three intervention applications filed on behalf of those who were appointed as Staff Nurse and Lab Technician in a newly constituted State medical college in District Pauri Garhwal known as "Veer Chandra Singh Garhwali Government Medical Science and Research Institute, Srinager", needs mention (In Application CLMA Nos. 8448 of 2017, 2273 of 2017 & 4713 of 2018). Their case is somewhat different. Admittedly, the college itself was constituted in the year 2008 and on 25.2.2009 the posts of Lab Technician and 3 Staff Nurse were created by the State Government in the said newly constituted college and thereafter on 28.2.2009, an advertisement was issued by the State Government inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up these posts against which the interveners applied and were appointed. Yet their appointment was not a regular appointment and it was called a "contractual appointment", for the reason that till that time (and even now), no rules were framed for recruitment of Staff Nurse and Lab Technician in the said medical college. Therefore, in these peculiar facts and circumstances where there was an urgent need for manning the medical college by Staff Nurses and Lab Technicians, and there being no other option, such a measure was adopted. As there was no service rules, and in any case, the Government could have resorted later a one-time measure for regularization, this case is distinguished from the rest
27. Therefore as regarding the interveners who are Staff Nurses and Lab Technicians in "Veer Chandra Singh Garhwali Government Medical Science and Research Institute, Srinagar", although their regularization still cannot be made in terms of the amendment made in the year 2016, for the simple reason that the amendment itself has been quashed and set aside, but this itself will not restrict the State Government from regularizing their services independently as a one-time measure as that would be in terms of the exception created by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Umadevi."
6. Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid judgment rendered by writ court was challenged before Division Bench of this Court in SPA No. 342 of 2018, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 20.07.2018. Para 15 of the judgment rendered in Special Appeal is extracted below:-
"15. As regards the argument addressed with reference to what is contained in Paragraph 26 of the impugned judgment is concerned, we do not think that we should give any relief to the appellants on the said basis. We must notice that, in fact, appellants are interveners. The interveners, who are subject matter of Paragraph 26, also can be treated as a party respondents. It is not as if the appointment of the interveners can be made subject matter of the Appeal filed by the appellants. In fact, we notice the submission of Mr. Alok Mahra that they have not even been made parties to this Appeal. Further, we do notice that there is some difference between the appellants and the interveners before the learned Single Judge, whose 4 case is considered in Paragraph 26. At any rate, in the Appeal filed by the appellants, we do not intend to consider granting any relief to either them or against the party respondents."
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met, if petitioners are permitted to make representation(s) to the Competent Authority in the State Government, who shall look into the matter and take appropriate decision thereupon, in accordance with law, within stipulated time frame.
8. Accordingly, writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to make representation(s) to the Competent Authority i.e., Secretary, Medical Education Department Dehradun, within two months from today. If such representation(s) is made, Competent Authority shall examine the matter and take appropriate decision, in accordance with law, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of such representation along with certified copy of this order.
9. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(Manoj K. Tiwari, J.) 17.05.2019 Aswal