Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/1436/2021 on 24 November, 2021
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
WPSS No.1436 of 2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocate holding brief of
Mr. S.S. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Subhang Dobhal, Advocate for the
respondents.
In the given set of circumstances of the
present writ petition, this Court is of the view that it
does not require an elaborate deliberation by this
Court for the purposes of considering the nature of
the relief, which has been sought for in the writ
petition while challenging the order dating back to
20.11.2013, so far it is concerned with regards to
the regularization of the petitioner's services on the
post of Peon instead of Generator Operator and the
second relief sought for rectification of
regularization order of 20.11.2013, by treating it to
be regularized in relation to the post of Generator
Operator. Precisely if the case at hand is
considered, though the petitioner without any
document on record contends to have been
appointed as a Generator Operator in 1992, the said
stand cannot be placed any reliance and credence in
the absence of the same being established by any
document of appointment on record, for the reason
being that the petitioner after submitting his
application form for regularization on 17.12.2011
was considered and granted a regularization on the
post of Peon as back as on 20.11.2013, on which he
continued to work so in the said capacity since then.
At this belated stage, preferring a writ
petition seeking a modification of his own order of
regularization of 2013, which he has already
accepted by filing this writ petition on 10.11.2011, I
am of the view that under the principle of
submission, once the petitioner himself has
accepted the propriety and the benefits of
regularization order of 20.11.2013, he cannot revert
back now and take a stand, that he ought to have
been regularized on the post of Generator Operator,
with effect from 2013, the post on which he claims
to have been appointed in 1992. Though without
there being any material on record.
Apart from it, the parity which the petitioner
has claimed, on the basis of the judgment rendered
by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in a writ
petition being Writ Petition (S/S) No.190 of 2014
Virendra Kumar vs. Vice Chancellor G.P. Pant
Nager, University is concerned, as decided by the
Coordinate Bench on 08.05.2018, this Court cannot
be oblivious of the fact that apart from the fact that
the said writ petition related to the issue of
determination of inter-se seniority; where the final
seniority list and the objections submitted against it
were the subject matter of consideration; but still
then too that writ petition itself was preferred in
2014, which was later on decided in 2018. Hence,
no equivalence can be sought by the petitioner
based on the judgment of 08.05.2018, since the said
writ petition was related to altogether a different
subject and claim and particularly when the
petitioner himself has submitted to the order of
regularization on 20.11.2013, he cannot now
belatedly prefer a writ petition without explaining
the latches after accepting the propriety of an order
dated 20.11.2013.
Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere
in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly,
dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
24.11.2021
Arti
