Tarif Khan vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 10694 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 33
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10297 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Tarif Khan
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satya Sinha,Lallu Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

Following orders were passed in the matter on 17.8.2021:-

"Petitioner is seeking regularization of his services. No provision has, however, been shown under which petitioner's claim would be said to be covered for regularization.

Counsel for the petitioner seeks adjournment to respond to the above.

Put up day after tomorrow as fresh."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to produce any rule for regularization, under which his claim is covered. Instead of it a judgment of the Supreme Court in Vice Chancellor Anand Agriculture University Vs. Kanubhai Nanubhai Vaghela and another, reported in 2021 Supreme (SC) 383, has been relied upon.

Upon a perusal of para 11 of the judgment in Vice Chancellor Anand Agriculture University (supra), it is apparent that scheme was approved for regularization of daily wagers and the Supreme Court directed consideration of all eligible daily wagers for regularization/absorption in accordance with the scheme. Plea taken by the University with regard to non-availability of vacancy was turned down.

Petitioner claims to be employed in the office of Executive Engineer, and therefore the rules for regularization framed by the State alone would be applicable upon him. Such rules have been amended in 2016 in light of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, but the petitioner's claim is not covered for regularization under the rules. The cut off date for regularization is 31.12.2000, whereas petitioner has been engaged only in the year 2010. Even otherwise such consideration was to be a one time affair. Law is otherwise settled that unless claim for regularization is covered by the rules specifically framed for the purpose no such direction would be warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction. In the absence of petitioner's claim being covered by any specific rules for regularization no direction, therefore, is warranted for consideration of his claim.

Writ petition, accordingly, is dismissed.

Order Date :- 19.8.2021

Anil