HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 35820 of 2011 Petitioner :- Raj Narayan And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Petitioner Counsel :- M.Sarwar Khan,Ashok Khare Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Satish Mandhyan Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Petitioners before this Court were employed as Daily Wage employee/Ad-hoc in various Mandi Samities situate in various districts between 1.4.1996 to 30.10.1997. On 12.3.1999 the State Government/Board took a decision to terminate the service of the employees like the petitioners who were appointed between 1.4.1996 to 30.10.1997. As many as 1021 employees including the petitioners were terminated. The termination order was challenged before the Allahabad High Court including the Bench at Lucknow. It is not necessary to delate upon the aforesaid aspect of the matter any further inasmuch as the matter was considered by the Supreme Court in Special Appeal No.116 of 2001 "The Additional Director Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad Vs. Raj Narayan and others" and in SLP (C) No.15797 of 2001 and SLP (C) No.15677 of 2003. The controversy was finally decided vide judgment and order dated 16.12.2005, a copy of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court has been annexed as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not find any illegality in the decision of the Board to terminate the employment of persons like the petitioners. The judgment of the Single Judge as upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court to the contrary was set-aside. However, a direction was issued to the Board and the Market Committee to fill up all existing vacancies strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. It would be worthwhile to reproduce the direction of Supreme Court in that regard which reads as under:-
"We, however, direct the Board and the Market Committees to fill up all existing vacancies strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months from date. While doing so, amongst other eligible candidates, the candidature of the employees whose services have been terminated should also be taken into consideration and in the event, the appropriate authority of the Market Committees or the Board can relax the age-bar, the same would be done. The respective Market Committees, however, in the meanwhile, if for exigencies of the work, intend to appoint any person, it may do so. However, post facto approval therefor should be obtained from the Board. In the offers of appointment which may be issued to such temporary or ad hoc employees it shall be made clear that their appointments would be ad hoc in nature and the same shall be co-terminus with the appointment of regular employees."
It is clear that except for permitting relaxation in age, the Supreme Court did not grant any further weightage to the persons like the petitioners in the matter of regular selection. On the contrary it was specifically provided that the vacancies shall be filled strictly in accordance with law.
In terms of the judgment of Supreme Court an advertisement has been published for making regular appointment for the first time in 2008 and thereafter in 2011. Under the advertisement dated 30.4.2011 it has been mentioned that persons who had submitted their application in response to the earlier advertisement of 2008 may not apply afresh. The advertisements are challenged on the ground that the Mandi Samities/Board have not provided any weightage in the matter of selection qua the persons like the petitioners who had put in large number of years of service as Daily Wage/Ad-hoc employee. None grant of such weightage in the matter of regular selection is contended to be arbitrary. Reference has been placed about an interim order passed by the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.7369 of 2008, copy whereof has been annexed as Anneuxre No.8 to the writ petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
This Court finds that the Supreme Court under its order dated 16.12.2005 has issued direction for providing relaxation in age only to the persons like the petitioners in the matter of regular selection as per the law applicable. This Court cannot add to the direction issued by the Supreme Court. Therefore, it cannot direct that the Mandi Samiti should provide any weightage in the matter of regular selection to the petitioners having regard to their earlier Ad-hoc/Daily Wage services. The Supreme Court in its direction quoted above had specifically recorded that the regular selection shall be held strictly in accordance with law. Law means the statutory rules applicable qua recruitment to the posts. No direction can be issued for grant of any weightage to the employees like the petitioners in the matter of regular selection contrary to the statutory rules.
The interim order relied upon has no presidential value and therefore, can not reflect upon the final judgment in the matter.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.7.2011 Kpy