AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 194 wordsDinesh Pathak, J
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.P. Dubey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing State-respondents and perused the record on Board.
The petitioner claims that he was appointed against a short term vacancy in the year 1998. His claim for regularization was rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should be extended the benefit of the Government Order dated 04.10.2024 issued in pursuance of the judgment rendered by this Court in Writ-A No.21492 of 2023 (Vinod Kumar Srivastava vs. State of U.P. And Others) decided on 30.09.2024.
In view of the said fact, the order dated 23.12.2023 passed by the respondent no.4 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the Regional Regularization Committee to accord fresh consideration to the claim of the petitioner, keeping in mind the guidelines laid down in paragraph no.149 of the judgment rendered in Vinod Kumar Srivastava (supra) as well as the Government Order dated 04.10.2024, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the Committee.
With the aforesaid directions, instant writ petition stands disposed of.