Uttarakhand High Court
G.B. Pant University Of ... vs Ram Ashish on 24 August, 2023
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No.169 of 2017
G.B. Pant University of Agricultural &
Technology & others ........Appellants
Versus
Ram Ashish ........Respondent
Present:-
Ms. Soniya Chawla, learned counsel for the appellants.
Mr. M.C. Kandpal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.
Rajesh Joshi, Mr. B.S. Rawat and Ms. Geeta Parihar, learned
counsel for the respondent.
Coram: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. (Oral)
Appellants have challenged the judgment and
order dated 20.03.2017, rendered by learned Single
Judge in WPSS No.2028 of 2015. By the said judgment,
respondent's writ petition was allowed and G.B. Pant
University was directed to regularize services of the
respondent on the post of Bill Clerk w.e.f. 02.09.1995.
2. Appellants have challenged the said judgment only
on the ground that respondent (writ petitioner) was not
academically qualified for appointment as Bill Clerk in
the year 1995 when he was assigned duties of Bill Clerk,
although he subsequently attained the required
qualification.
3. According to the appellants, the qualification
required for appointment as Bill Clerk in 1995 was
intermediate, while respondent (writ petitioner) passed
intermediate examination only in 2012, and in 1995, he
was having high school qualification.
4. Learned Single Judge has held that respondent
was appointed as daily wager on 04.10.1990 and
eligibility and qualification etc has to be seen at the time
of appointment; after taking work as Bill Clerk
continuously since 1995, the issue of qualification cannot
be raised after such long lapse of time, while considering
the respondent for regularization.
5. Learned counsel for respondent (writ petitioner)
has drawn our attention to the noting made by Director
(Legal) of the University on 19.12.2016 (enclosed with the
supplementary affidavit of the University). Perusal of the
note-sheet reveals that although respondent (writ
petitioner) was initially engaged as Helper, however, on
his representation made on 05.02.1993, he was assigned
duties of Bill Clerk w.e.f. 02.09.1995. The note-sheet
further indicates that respondent (writ petitioner) is
serving continuously as Bill Clerk w.e.f. 02.09.1995. Para
7 of the note-sheet further indicates that respondent (writ
petitioner) never worked as Helper.
6. This Court vide order dated 01.08.2023 had granted
time to learned counsel for the appellants to get
instructions in regard to para 1, 4 & 7 of the note-sheet.
7. Today, learned counsel for the appellants could not
give any satisfactory reply in respect to the statements
made in the note-sheet.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
respondent is eligible to be regularized on a Group-D post
of Helper and not the post of Bill Clerk which is a Group-
C post.
9. Since respondent has never served on Group-D
post of Helper, therefore, asking him to serve as Helper,
after such long lapse of time would be unjust and
inequitable.
10. The representation dated 05.02.1993 referred to in
the note-sheet is on record, as annexure-2 to the writ
petition, wherein respondent stated that he is qualified
for discharging duties as Bill Clerk. Thus, it can be
inferred that he was assigned duties of Bill Clerk upon
due examination of his ability to perform duties of Bill
Clerk. Thus contention now raised by the University that
he is not qualified for the post of Helper cannot be
accepted. Even otherwise also, respondent has acquired
experience of nearly three decades of serving as Bill
Clerk, which has to be taken into account while
considering the question of qualification.
11. In the facts of this case, the view taken by learned
Single Judge that experience is a substitute for
qualification, does not call for any interference in this
intra-court appeal. Accordingly, the special appeal is
dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
24.08.2023
AK
