Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. On 27.1.82, 460 posts of Assistant Prosecution Officer were advertised by the Department for making substantive appointments. It is alleged in Paragraph 9 of the writ petition that though the petitioners were appointed in the year 1977 on adhoc basis for a period of one year or till regular selection which ever is earlier, however, till the date of the aforesaid advertisement the petitioner, continued on the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer and their tenure was extended from time to time. It is alleged in Paragraph 10 of the writ petition that the petitioners were entitled to regularisation under the U.P. Regularisation of Adhoc Employees Rules, 1979 and hence they filed Writ Petition No. 6157 of 1982 in this Court in which an interim order was passed on 14.5.82 that the process of selection may go on but the petitioners services may not be terminated on the ground that fresh persons have been recruited. Accordingly, a letter was sent to the Commission to recommend 220 candidates in place of 460 candidates on the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer vide letter dated 16.1.84 true copy of which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition.

6. In the meantime the U.P. Regularisation of Adhoc Appointments (on posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1984, came into force and the out of date was fixed as 1.5.83. It is alleged in Paragraph 14 of the writ petition that though the Government request the Commission to recommend 220 persons for appointment on the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition and also 33 future vacancies, the Commission by letter dated 23.4.84 recommended the names of 451 persons instead of 253 as requested by the State Government. Out of the Select List a total number of 202 persons were appointed vide order dated 28.12.1984. It is alleged in Paragraph 16 of the writ petition that the petitioners services were regularized vide order dated 15.3.1994 with effect from 22.3.1984.

10. The State Government has filed a counter affidavit and we have perused the same. In Paragraph 2(Ga) it is stated that petitioners were given opportunity of hearing against the interim selection list dated 17.9.2002 and they made their representations against the same before the final seniority list dated 2.1.2003 was issued. It is alleged that the same is in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 22.11.2001. True copy of the representations of the petitioners are Annexurcs-CA-1 to CA-10 to the counter affidavit. A Review Application was filed in the Supreme Court against the judgment dated 22.11.2001 which was rejected on 13.3.2002 vide Annexure-CA-12. It is alleged that respondents have complied with the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 22.11.2001 and accordingly the selected through the Commission have been placed above the adhoc appointees. In Paragraph 2(Cha) it is alleged that a Committee was constituted by the State Government for regularisation of the adhoc Assistant Prosecution Officers and this Committee made recommendations on 17.4.85 but the State Government could not act on the same till 1994 due to various interim orders in various writ petition. Ultimately, a Government Order dated 7.7.1994 was issued regularising such persons. However, the Supreme Court by its judgment dated 22.11.2001 observed that such persons should be placed below in seniority to those who were selected through the Commission on 24.3.1984. Accordingly, the State Government issued the Seniority List dated 2.1.2003 after considering the objections of the petitioners and others. In Paragraph 2 (Chcha) it is stated that the recommendation of the Committee dated 17.4.1985 could not be implemented due to various interim orders in various writ petitions and hence it is only in the year 1994 that the decision could be taken by the State Government.