Lallu Prasad Singh and Others vs State of U.P.

Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.—Notice on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel.

Mr. Amit Dwivedi, Advocate has put in appearance for opposite party No. 5.

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 5 as well as learned Standing Counsel.

The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 04.4.2011, copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, by which the opposite party No. 5 has been regularized from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 25.7.1992 in compliance of the Court''s order dated 17.2.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 4712 (SS) of 2004.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Court by its order dated 17.2.2010 had directed the authorities to reconsider the case of the opposite party No. 5 for regularization from the date of his appointment, however, it does not mean that the regularization was to be considered ignoring the relevant rules.

It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the opposite party No. 5 was already regularized by means of letter dated 18.4.2002, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition, and this fact was not brought to the knowledge of the Court while passing of the said judgment and order dated 17.2.2010. The Petitioners had not challenged the said order, as such the impugned order of regularization of the services of the opposite party No. 5 w.e.f. 25.7.1992 is wrong.

It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners were not made party to the earlier writ petition and they had no knowledge of the said judgment, and therefore they could not challenge the same.

Mr. Amit Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 5 submits that the instant writ petition is not maintainable. The impugned order has been passed in compliance of the judgment and order dated 17.2.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 4712 (SS) of 2004 by which the Court had directed the authorities to reconsider the case of the Petitioner (opposite party No. 5) for regularization from the date of his initial appointment ignoring the order dated 20.1.2004 and also taking into consideration the seniority list issued by the Head Office on 20.6.2003 as well as the order dated 19.1.2009.

His contention is that this Court was fully satisfied that the opposite party No. 5 is entitled to be regularized w.e.f. the date of his initial appointment i.e. 25.7.1992, and therefore, a direction was issued to the opposite parties to reconsider the case of the opposite party No. 5 for regularization w.e.f. 25.7.1992.

It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 5 that in case any indulgence is granted by this Court, it will amount to reviewing of the earlier judgment dated 17.2.2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4712 (SS) of 2004. In case Petitioners were aggrieved, they could have challenged the same by filing Special Appeal.

I have considered various submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.

The order impugned clearly indicates that it has been passed in compliance of the judgment and order dated 17.2.2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4712 (SS) of 2004; wherein this Court while finally disposing the writ petition had directed the opposite parties to reconsider the case of opposite party No. 5 for regularization from the date of his appointment ignoring the order dated 20.1.2004 and also taking into consideration the seniority list issued by the Head Office on 20.6.2003 as well as the order dated 19.1.2009 expeditiously within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. It appears that after passing of the said judgment, the opposite parties had taken opinion from the Additional Advocate General, who by letter dated 13.1.2011 had opined that the judgment of High Court may be expeditiously complied with and the opposite party No. 5 may be regularized w.e.f. 25.7.1992. It was thereafter the opposite parties had reconsidered the case of the opposite party No. 5 for regularization from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 25.7.1992 and passed the impugned order.

This Court is of the considered opinion that, in case, the Petitioners were aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 17.2.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 4712 (SS) of 2004, they could have challenged the same after getting the knowledge of the same. The order impugned appears to have been passed in compliance of the judgment and order dated 17.2.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 4712 (SS) of 2004, as such writ petition against the impugned order would not be the appropriate remedy for the Petitioners.

In this view of the matter, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed, it is hereby dismissed.