Vijay Kumar Singh vs Narendra Dev University of Agriculture and Technology and Others

I.M. Quddusi, J.—By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged his termination from service and claimed his regularization on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in Narendra Dev University of Agriculture and Technology, Faizabad, inter alia, on the ground that the agricultural land of the petitioner''s family has been acquired by the State Government for the said University for the purpose of university building. The area of the land was approximately 4 Bighas. Vide Government order dated 15th June 1985 the Government has taken a policy decision that one of the members of the family whose land is acquired shall be given employment on any of the post which is outside the purview of the Public Service Commission. The petitioner while submitting his application for appointment claimed the benefit of the government order along with his meritorious academic record as he has secured 79 per cent marks in Diplona (Civil) Engineering and he was engaged on daily wage basis only in the year 1991. His duties as daily rated worker was that he was to make final measurements of the work done and to enter the same in Measurement Book and verify the work, to supervise the stores and constructions of the roads and building etc. According to the petitioner, the only difference in the status of the petitioner and a regular Junior Engineer in the University is that of only the difference of salary. His services were terminated orally on 31.12.1994. Being aggrieved, the father of the petitioner made representation to the Vice Chancellor on 25th January, 1995. It has further been averred in the writ petition that the Vice Chancellor of the University had also issued an order on 8.4.1994 in which it was provided that while making appointment preference would be given to the dependents of the affected farmers, whose land had been acquired for construction of the University building. In that order it was also provided that firstly the dependents of the affected farmers should be appointed on regular basis and in case of no vacancy on regular pay roll then they should be appointed on daily wage basis in case they are interested to accept the same.

On 8.9.1995 this Court directed the Vice Chancellor to consider the petitioner''s representations and pass requisite orders thereon within three weeks from the date of production of a copy of that order and in case he does not allow the prayer made in the representation he shall give reasons in his order and shall also file a counter affidavit within two weeks thereafter.

A counter affidavit has been filed in which it has not been disputed that the petitioner was a daily rated employee who belonged to the family whose land was acquired. It is also not disputed that there are orders that the persons whose land has been acquired or their dependents should be given employment in accordance with the Rules. Only those persons whose land had been acquired shall be given priority in selection on possessing the requisite qualifications by them. The representation of the father of the petitioner was referred to the Director, Works and Plants for comments and thereafter the Vice Chancellor has mentioned on the representation �No PL� by which it appears that the representation of the petitioner''s father was rejected on 6.2.1995. It has further been averred that two other brothers of the petitioners are already working in the University.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

The intention of the Government Order dated 15th June, 1985 as contained in Annexure ''2'' to the writ petition is not that for the purposes of rehabilitation, the employment of one of the family members of such families, whose land has been acquired should be given employment on daily wage basis. It has been specifically mentioned therein that the Government had decided to provide employment to the members of the family whose land is acquired for the rehabilitation and in Government order dated 7th September, 1976 it was directed that in grade ''C'' and ''D'' posts the employment to the members of those family should be given on the basis of the vacancies at the minimum of the pay scales admissible to the employees of those categories and thereafter vide Government Order dated 21st February, 1980 it was provided that atleast one of the members of such family should be provided employment in the same scheme/project which is installed, at the land acquired from them according to his qualifications without restriction on any pay scale on suitable post excluding the posts which are within the purview of the Public Service Commission should be given employment positively.

In view of the Government order it is clear that the intention of the Government is to provide regular appointment to atleast one of the family members whose land has been acquired. In the instant matter, the petitioner and his two brothers, who are already working in the University have been engaged on daily wage basis and the representation of the father of the petitioner for providing employment to the petitioner clearly shows that his father wants that the petitioner should be employed regularly in view of the Government policy laid down in the aforesaid Government order. Instead of giving regular employment to the petitioner, the representation of the father of the petitioner was rejected and the engagement of the petitioner on daily wage basis was terminated. This action of the opposite parties is clearly against the spirit of the Government Orders mentioned above.

In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued to the opposite party No.1 to provide a regular appointment to the petitioner according to his qualifications and suitability, following the policy decision of the State Government laid down in the aforesaid Government Order. He shall be provided regular employment on a post which is not within the purview of the Public Service Commission and is suitable according to his qualifications, within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. Till such appointment is provided, the petitioner shall be allowed to work in the same vacancy in which he was working prior to his termination.

There shall be no order as to costs

(Petition allowed)