# Ram Sanehi & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 6 ILRA 855
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-28
- **Case number:** WRIT A No. 4178 of 2003
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-sanehi-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45811
- **Pages:** 21

## Headnote

Law
-
Selection/Appointment/Regularization -
U.P.
Regulation
of
Daily
Wages
Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules,
2001; U.P. Group 'D' Employees Service
Rules, 1985: Rules 4(i), 9(3) - If there is
no provision for regularization the same
cannot be directed - Selection is not found
to be vitiated on account of nepotism and
favouritism, as alleged by the petitioners, in
absence of any material on record. No
illegality could be found in the selection in
question. Court held that it is not a case of
regularization
since
selection
and
appointments have already been made. Unless
those appointments have been nullified,
petitioners cannot claim any benefit. (Para 13,
15, 56, 57)

B. U.P. Group 'D' Employees Service
Rules, 1985: Rules 4(i), 19(3) -
"Retrenched Employees" - No provision
in Rules, 1985 has been shown providing
any preference to be given to petitioners
on account of the fact that they have
worked as daily wage employees or
otherwise
in
the
Department.
Some
weightage
has
been
provided
for
"retrenched employees" but petitioners do
not satisfy the definition of "retrenched
employees". (Para 16)

C. Words & Phrases - "Preference" - A
mere rule of preference meant to give
weightage to the additional qualification
cannot
be
enforced
as
a
rule
of
reservation
or
rule
of
complete
precedence - U.P. Police Headquarters,
Allahabad
vide
order
dated
30.11.2002
directed to give preference for regular
appointment to persons who were already
working but question of preference arise only
when all other things are satisfied and
preference cannot be treated as right of
appointment to exclusion of others. Petitioners
could not be given preference if other
candidates performed better. (Para 6, 34 to
37)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:
856 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

_Characters 0–39,952 of 64,053. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39952 for what follows._

6 All. Ram Sanehi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 855
committed by the Computer Operator
cannot simply be accepted. If the Courts
were to accept such a plea of the
petitioners, then this would result in a
situation where the petitioners would get
the benefit of a wrong if the wrong claim
went unnoticed and if noticed the
petitioners could always turn around and
claim that this was a result of a human
error. Each candidate necessarily must
bear the consequences of his failure to fill
up the application form correctly. From
perusal of the record, I am of the opinion
that the error/errors committed by the
petitioners are neither minor nor are
human error/errors.

21. In view of the facts as narrated
above as well as the law laid down by the
differnt Division Bench of this Court
from time to time as well as by the Apex
Court, no relief could be granted to the
petitioners.

22. The writ petition is dismissed.
----------
(2020)06ILR A855
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.02.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

WRIT A No. 4178 of 2003

Ram Sanehi & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri W.H.Khan, Sri Gulrez Khan, Sri
J.H.Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri C.P. Awasthi, Sri J.N. Maurya,
Sri P. Awasthi.
A.
Service
Law
-
Selection/Appointment/Regularization -
U.P.
Regulation
of
Daily
Wages
Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules,
2001; U.P. Group 'D' Employees Service
Rules, 1985: Rules 4(i), 9(3) - If there is
no provision for regularization the same
cannot be directed - Selection is not found
to be vitiated on account of nepotism and
favouritism, as alleged by the petitioners, in
absence of any material on record. No
illegality could be found in the selection in
question. Court held that it is not a case of
regularization
since
selection
and
appointments have already been made. Unless
those appointments have been nullified,
petitioners cannot claim any benefit. (Para 13,
15, 56, 57)

B. U.P. Group 'D' Employees Service
Rules, 1985: Rules 4(i), 19(3) -
"Retrenched Employees" - No provision
in Rules, 1985 has been shown providing
any preference to be given to petitioners
on account of the fact that they have
worked as daily wage employees or
otherwise
in
the
Department.
Some
weightage
has
been
provided
for
"retrenched employees" but petitioners do
not satisfy the definition of "retrenched
employees". (Para 16)

C. Words & Phrases - "Preference" - A
mere rule of preference meant to give
weightage to the additional qualification
cannot
be
enforced
as
a
rule
of
reservation
or
rule
of
complete
precedence - U.P. Police Headquarters,
Allahabad
vide
order
dated
30.11.2002
directed to give preference for regular
appointment to persons who were already
working but question of preference arise only
when all other things are satisfied and
preference cannot be treated as right of
appointment to exclusion of others. Petitioners
could not be given preference if other
candidates performed better. (Para 6, 34 to
37)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:
856 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1. State of U.P. Vs Chaturth Shreni Karmachari
Sangh . & ors., 2006(4) ESC 2888 (All) (Para
13, 56)

2. Sayed Mohammad Mahfooj Vs St. of U.P. .
& ors., 2007(2) ALJ 628 (Para 32)

3. Ajit Raizada . & ors.Vs St. of U.P. through
Secy. & ors., 2011 (6) ADJ 511 (Para 32)

4. State of U.P. & anr. Vs Om Prakash . &
ors.AIR 2006 SC 3080 (Para 35)

5. Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Public Service
Commission Vs Y.V.V.R. Srinivasulu . & ors.
(2003) 5 SCC 341 (Para 36)

6. Daya Ram Singh Vs St. of U.P. . & ors.,
2007(5) ADJ 359 (Para 37)

7. State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi . & ors.,
(2006) 4 SCC 1 (Para 56)

Precedent distinguished:

1. Jagannath Prasad Sharma Vs The State of
U.P. . & ors., AIR 1961 SC 1245 (Para 12, 41)

2. Ajay Hasia . & ors.Vs Khalid Mujib
Sehravardiand . & ors., (1981) 1 SCC 722
(Para 12, 46, 50)

3. Manjul Kumar & anr. Vs St. of U.P., 2007(7)
AWC 7712 (Para 12, 51)

4. Krishna Murari Vs St. of U.P. . & ors.,
2012(6) AWC 5571 (Para 12, 52, 55)

5. Satyendra Kumar Singh . & ors.Vs St. of
U.P. & ors., 2013(3) ESC 1226 (All) (Para 12,
53)

6. Vijay Kumar Gaur Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,
2017(1) AWC 552 (Para 12, 55)

Present petition prays for quashing
Office Memorandums dated 08.01.2003,
09.01.2003 and 10.01.2003, issued by
Superintendent of Police, Banda.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. This writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by eleven petitioners, namely, Ram
Sanehi, Mool Chandra, Siv Ram, Usman
Khan, Kamlesh Kumar, Jamal Khan,
Dharmdas, Shiv Ratan, Ram Kripal
Yadav, Lakhan Lal and Ganga Ram,
praying for issue of a writ of certiorari to
quash
Office
Memorandums
dated
08.01.2003, 09.01.2003 and 10.01.2003
(Annexures-2, 3 and 4 to the writ petition
respectively). Petitioners have also prayed
for issue of a writ of mandamus
commanding respondents to regularize
them on the post of Follower, a Group-D
post.

2. Petitioners have pleaded that a
press notification dated 21.12.2002 was
issued by Superintendent of Police, Banda
inviting
applications
for
filling
25
vacancies of Group-D posts in Police
Department in District Banda. The break
up of vacancies are given as under:

Name of Post

Number of vacancies

Follower/Cook/Kahar

23

Waterman

 01

Safai Karmchari

01

3. The notified vacancies were in
the scale of Rs. 2550-3200. It was stated
that selection shall be made on the basis
of interview which shall be held on
08.01.2003 at Police Lines, Banda. The
selection was held and Respondents-4 to
28 were declared selected vide office
Memorandums
dated
08.01.2003,
09.01.2003 and 10.01.2003.
6 All. Ram Sanehi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
857

4. Aforesaid selection has been
challenged on the ground that petitioners
were engaged to discharge duties of
various nature, namely, Cook, Barbar,
Carpenter etc. Petitioners-1 and 2 were
engaged from time to time since 1990;
Petitioners-3 and 4 since 1995; Petitioner5 since 1996; Petitioners-6 to 8 since
1997 and Petitioners-9 to 11 since 1998.
Most petitioners worked as Cook while
Petitioner-2
worked
as
Barber
and
Petitioner-11
as
Carpenter.
Initially
petitioners were paid a consolidated pay
of Rs. 540/- per month which later
increased to Rs. 1050/- per month.
Engagement and working of petitioners
continued with a break of two or three
days just to defeat their claim of
continuous service. Respondent-2, for
regular appointment was directed to give
preference by U.P. Police Headquarters,
Allahabad vide order dated 30.11.2002 to
persons who were already working but
that was ignored while making selection
of Respondents-4 to 28. Petitioners, who
are Scheduled Castes, were interviewed
on 08.01.2003, those who are Other
Backward Class were interviewed on
09.01.2003 and General candidates were
interviewed on 10.01.2003. Selection
Committee
consisted
of
Sri
S.N.
Upadhyay, the then Superintendent of
Police,
Banda
as
Chairman.
SubDivisional Magistrate, Attarra and Circle
Officer,
Baberru
were
Members.
Selection was made in a very arbitrary
manner
inasmuch
as
Respondent-4,
Ashok Kumar is brother-in-law of Sri
Dev
Dutt,
DIG,
Chitrakoot
Dham;
Respondent-5,
Narendra
Pal
is
recommendee of Sri Dinkar, Minister;
Respondent-6, Ramesh Kumar's brotherin-law is in Secretariat; Respondent-7,
Girija Kumar is a man of Sri R.N.
Srivastava, I.G. Banda; Respondent-8 is a
man of S.O. Maton and similarly other
selectees are connected with persons
enjoying high position in Government.
Besides petitioners, who were working as
Follower in Banda, some others similarly
working, have also not been selected
except, Respondents-7, 9, , 12, 14, 17, 21
and 22. With regard to relationship of
some respondents, and the factum that
those who were selected and earlier
working for lesser period, averments are
contained in paras 11 and 12 to writ
petition, which read as under:

"11. That the respondent no. 4
Ashok Kumar is brother-in-law of DIG
Shri
Dev
Dutt
Chitrakoot
Dham,
respondent no. 5 Narendra Pal is
recommendee of Shri Dinkar Minister,
respondent no. 6 Ramesh Kumar is
brother-in-law in Secretariat, respondent
no. 7 Girijia Kumar is a man of Shri R.N.
Srivastava I.G. Banda, respondent no. 8
is a man of S.O. Maton who brought him
at the time of interview and similarly
other persons who have been selected are
men of the Selection Committee are of
some
other
persons
enjoying
high
position.

12. That, in addition to the
petitioner there were other persons
working as Followers in Banda who
appeared in the interview but have not
been selected except Girija Kumar
respondent no. 7 who was working for
one year, respondent no. 9 who was
working as Sweeper, respondent no. 12
Mohd. Rafiq worked for two or three
months and was personal Barber to DIB,
respondent no. 14 Rajesh Kumar was
working since 1998, respondent no. 17
Shri Krishan Gupta was working quite
long time, respondent no. 21 Abdul Hafiz
858 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was working sine 1996, respondent no. 22
Raj Narain was working since 1999."

5. It is said that selection is vitiated
on account of favouratism and nepotism;
Petitioners-1 and 2 were entitled to be
considered for regularization under U. P.
Regularization
of
Daily
Wages
Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules,
2001 (hereinafter referred to as the
"Rules, 2001"); Selection held on 8th, 9th
and 10th January, 2003 is neither fair nor
impartial but vitiated on account of
arbitrariness; Petitioners ought to have
been
given
preference
but
denied;
Petitioners were entitled for 15 marks on
the ground of their working for more than
three years as Followers as per Rule 9(3)
of U.P. Group 'D' Employees Service
Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as
"Rules, 1985") but said benefit has not
been given hence entire selection is bad
and illegal.

6. A counter affidavit has been filed
on behalf of Respondents-1 to 3 sworn by
Sri Ram Bodh, Additional Superintendent
of
Police,
Banda.
With
regard
to
engagement of petitioners from time to
time facts are not disputed but allegations
of favouratism, nepotism and arbitrariness
are denied. It is said that petitioners could
not secure qualifying marks and having
not been found suitable, not selected.
Allegations of relationship with high
officials are denied and it is said that
selection
has
been
made
as
per
performance
of
candidates
before
Selection Committee; there was no
restriction with respect of districts to
which candidates belong and claim of
regularisation of petitioners is denied. It is
not disputed that under U.P. Police
Headquarters order dated 30.11.2002
those who were worked as substitute were
required to be given preference but not if
other candidates have performed better.
Petitioners do not satisfy the definition of
"retrenched employee" and, therefore,
claim set up on the basis of Rules, 1985
has been denied.

7. Respondents-4 to 28 have also
filed a collective counter affidavit which
is sworn by Respondent-4, Ashok Kumar.
Herein also allegations of relationship,
favouratism and nepotism are denied and
it is said that allegations have been made
by petitioners mala fide.

8. Copy of Police Headquarters
letter dated 30.11.2002 has been filed as
Annexure-1 to supplementary counter
affidavit and said letter reads as under:

^^mi;qZDr fo"k;d 'kklukns'k la[;k%
445 ,e@6&iq&1&2002] fnukad 15-11-2002 dh
layXu Nk;kizfr dk voyksdu djsa ,oa fufgr
'krksZa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq;s layXu izi= esa
inokj n'kkZ;h x;h fjfDr;ksa ,oa vf/kdrk ds
fooj.k ds vuqlkj rFkk 'kklu ds i=kad %
20@7@1986&dkfeZd&2 1⁄411⁄2 fnukad 0&9&86
}kjk vf/klwpuk lewg ^^x** deZpkjh lsok 1⁄4izFke
la'kks/ku1⁄2 fu;ekoyh 1986 ds vUrxZr fn;s x;s
izkfo/kkuksa ds vuqlkj vius v/khuLFk tuinksa ds
izHkkfj;ksa dks fnukad 15-01-2003 rd 'kklu }kjk
le;≤ ij fuxZr orZeku esa izpfyr vkj{k.k
uhfr dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, HkrhZ dh dk;Zokgh
lqfuf'pr djus gsrq funsZf'kr djus dh d`ik
djsaA

2- fjfDr ,oa vf/kdrk ds layXu
fooj.k esa n'kkZ;s x;s inksa dh la[;k esa bl chp
LFkkukUrj.k] e`R;q] lsokfuo`fRr ,oa e`rd vkfJr
dh HkrhZ ds QyLo:i inksa dh la[;k dh fLFkfr
esa ifjorZu dk gks tkuk LokHkkfod gS] ,slh
fLFkfr esa vius tksu ds leLr tuinksa dh
fjfDr ,oa vf/kdrk dks lek;ksftr djrs gq;s
HkrhZ gsrq funsZ'k fuxZr djus dh d`ik djsaA
izdj.k esa ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd ;fn dksbZ
6 All. Ram Sanehi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
859
deZpkjh iwoZ ls vLFkk;h inksa ij ,oa ,oth ij
dk;Zjr gksa ;k dk;Z fd;k gks rks ,sls dehZ dks
HkrhZ gsrq vo'; ojh;rk iznku djsaA iqfyl
eq[;ky; ds laKku esa cgqr ls tuinksa esa prqFkZ
Js.kh ds in ij HkrhZ gsrq dfeZ;ksa }kjk fjV
;kfpdk,a Hkh nk;j dh x;h gS ;fn ,sls izdj.k
vkids v/khuLFk tuinksa esa yfEcr gks] mls
izkFkfedrk ds vk/kkj ij lsok;ksftr fd;s tkus
ij fu;ekuqlkj vo'; fopkj djsa rkfd fjVksa dk
fuLrkj.k gks ldsA fnukad 31-12-2001 ds i'pkr
gq;h fjfDr;ksa dks bl HkrhZ esa lekos'k u fd;k
tk;A**

"Kindly peruse the enclosed
photocopy of the government order no.
445M/6-Pu-1-2002, dated 15.11.2002 on
the aforementioned subject; and in view
of the conditions vested therein and
considering the details of post-wise
vacancies and over-staffing shown in the
enclosed format, and also according to
the provisions of Group 'D' Employees
Service (First Amendment) Rules, 1986,
notified through the Government Letter
No.
20/7/1986-Personnel-2(1)
dated
0.09.86, kindly instruct in-charges of the
districts under your subordination to
ensure the process of recruitment to be
held till 15.01.2003, while keeping into
account the currently existing reservation
policy issued by the government from time
to time.

2. In the number of posts shown
in the enclosed details of vacancies and
excess staff, the number of posts is quite
natural to change due to transfer, death,
retirement
and
recruitment
on
compassionate
ground.
In
such
a
situation,
while
adjusting
all
the
vacancies and excess staff in your zone,
kindly
issue
instructions
for
the
recruitment process. In the matter, it is
also worthwhile to mention that if any
employee is working or has worked on
the temporary basis or as replacement;
then such employees must be given
preference. It is in the cognisance of the
police headquarters, writ petitions have
been
filed
by
employees
for
the
recruitment to the class IV posts in many
districts. If such matters are pending in
the districts under your subordination,
then due consideration must be had to
according employment on priority basis
so that the writs can be disposed of. The
vacancies arisen after 31.12.2001 shall
not be included in this recruitment."

(English translation by Court)

9. Petitioners have filed rejoinder
affidavit reiterating the averments made
in writ petition but with regard to
allegations of relationship of some of
selected candidates, no material has been
placed on record to substantiate the same.

10. A further supplementary counter
affidavit has been filed wherein para 11
of writ petition has been replied more
specifically as under:

"5. That it is further submitted
humbly that the facts mentioned in
paragraph no. 11 of the writ petition are
also denied vide counter affidavit sworn
on 26.2.2003 (dated 3.3.2003). It is
further
humbly
submitted
that
the
allegations made in paragraph 11 of the
writ petition are totally false and
frivolous having no substance. It is wrong
to state that respondent No. 4 Ashok
Kumar is selected because of her is
brother in law of DIG Sri Dev Dutt,
Chitrakoot Dham. It is further wrong to
state that respondent no. 5 Narendra Pal
is recommendee of Sri Dinkar Kumar. It
is further wrong to state that respondent
no. 6 Ramesh Kumar is brother in law in
860 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Secretariat. It is further humbly submitted
that in paragraph under reply the
allegations with regard to selection of
respondent no. 6 prima facie appears
false allegation, as a matter of fact non
can be the brother in law in Secretariat. It
is further wrong to state that respondent
no. 7 Girija Kumar is main of Sri R.N.
Srivastava
I.G.
Banda
and
his
candidature is considered as such. It is
further humbly submitted that there was
no post existing as I.G. Banda. It is
further wrong to state that respondent no.
8 is a man of S.O. Maton who brought
him at the time of interview. It is further
wrong to state that other persons who
have been selected are man of selection
committee. It is further humbly submitted
that none of the selected candidate is
family member, relative, friend of the
member of the selection committee. It is
further wrong to state that some other
selected candidates have been selected on
account of the persons enjoying high
posts. It is further humbly submitted that
no appointment is made

11. A select list of all the candidates
has also been placed on record as
Annexure-8 to aforesaid supplementary
counter affidavit sworn on 03.12.2011.

12. Sri W.H. Khan, learned Senior
Advocate appearing for petitioners has
submitted a written submission and
reiterated the same orally also. He also
placed reliance on Jagannath Prasad
Sharma vs. The State of U.P. and
others, AIR 1961 SC 1245; Ajay Hasia
and
others
vs.
Khalid
Mujib
Sehravardi and others, 1981(1) SCC
722; Manjul Kumar and another vs.
State of U.P., 2007(7) AWC 7712;
Krishna Murari vs. State of U.P. and
others, 2012(6) AWC 5571; Satyendra
Kumar Singh and others vs. State of
U.P. and others, 2013(3) ESC 1226
(All); and, Vijay Kumar Gaur vs. State
of U.P. and another, 2017(1) AWC 552.

13. On the contrary, learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing
for
Respondents-1, 2 and 3 contended that
selection has been made fairly; there is no
material to substantiate the allegations of
favouratism nepotism etc.; pleadings are
vague
and
unsubstantiated;
and,
petitioners have not shown any legal right
of regularization under any statute. These
arguments are adopted by learned counsel
appearing for Respondents-4 to 28 and he
has also placed reliance on this Court's
decision in State of U.P. vs. Chaturth
Shreni Karmachari Sangh and others,
2006(4) ESC 2888 (All).

14. The rival submissions of the
counsels, in my view, give rise to
following questions:

(i) Whether selection is vitiated
on account of favouritism and nepotism
by selecting the candidates who are
allegedly
related
to
highly
placed
officials, as stated in paras 11 and 12 of
the writ petition.

(ii)
Whether
selection
of
Respondents-4 to 28 is otherwise vitiated
in law.

(iii) Whether there is any
illegality in selection justifying inference
of this Court.

15. Coming to first question, I find
that specific relationship has been stated
by petitioners in respect of some of the
candidates but the same has been denied
by respondents in counter affidavit and
6 All. Ram Sanehi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
861
again in para 5 of supplementary counter
affidavit. Petitioners have not placed any
material to demonstrate and prove the
alleged relationship except oral assertions
made in paras 11 and 12 of writ petition
which have been denied by respondents
very categorically. In these facts and
circumstances and in absence of any
material on record to prove the alleged
relationship of some selected candidates
with superior officials, I find no substance
in the allegation that selection is vitiated
on account of nepotism and favouritism.
Question
(i)
is
answered
against
petitioners.

16. Now coming to Question (ii),
the claim is that petitioners are entitled
for preference as stated vide Police
Headquarter's letter dated 30.11.2002. It
is not disputed by learned counsel for
petitioners that regular selection was to be
made in accordance with Rules, 1985. No
provision in the said Rules has been
shown providing any preference to be
given to petitioners on account of the fact
that they have worked as daily wage
employees
or
otherwise
in
the
Department. Some weightage has been
provided for "retrenched employees" but I
find that petitioners do not satisfy the
definition of "retrenched employees".
Here I may consider the relevant
provision
deal
with
Retrenched
Employees so as to find out whether
petitioners can be said to Retrenched
Employees or not.

17. U.P. Retrenched Employees
Recruitment Rules, 1967 (hereinafter
referred to as the "Rules 1967") was the
first to be framed in this regard providing
certain benefits to retrenched employees.
The "retrenched employee" was defined
in Rule 2(b). Rule-3 of Rules, 1967
provides that the said rules shall remain in
force for a period of three years and
thereafter for such period as notified by
the Governor in consultation with the
Commission.
The
said
rules
were
applicable to all services and posts under
the rule making control of the Governor,
which were to be filled in wholly, or
partly by direct recruitment. The aforesaid
rules continued to remain in force upto
October, 1971.

18. In 1975, for recruitment in
Ministerial Cadre in the Subordinate
Offices, statutory rules under proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution of India
were framed, namely, "The Subordinate
Offices
Ministerial
Staff
(Direct
Recruitment) Rules, 1975" (hereinafter
referred to as "Rules, 1975") published in
the Gazette dated 29.7.1975. The rulemaking authority declares that the said
rules are being enacted in supersession of
all existing rules and orders on the subject
and for recruitment of ministerial staff in
the subordinate Government offices in the
State. The preface of Rules, 1975, reads
as under:

"In
exercise
of
powers
conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of
the Constitution, and in supersession of
all existing rules and orders on the
subject, the Governor is pleased to make
the following rules for recruitment of
ministerial staff in the subordinate
Government offices in the State."

19. Rule 3 of Rules, 1975, which
give it overriding effect, reads as under:

"3. Effect of inconsistency with
other rules.- In the event of any
inconsistency between these rules and any
specific service rules:
862 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(1) the provisions contained in
these rules prevail to the extent of the
inconsistency in case the specific rules
were made prior to the commencement of
these rules; and

(2) the provisions contained in
the specific rules shall prevail in case
they are made after the commencement of
these rules."

20. Rule 4(gg) of Rules, 1975
provides the definition of "Retrenched
Employee" and reads as under:

"(gg) "Retrenched Employee"
means a person who was employed on a
post under this rule making power of the
Governor-

(i) in permanent, temporary or
officiating capacity;

(ii) for a total minimum period
of one year, out which at least 3 months
service must have been continuous
service.

(iii) whose services were or may
be dispensed with due to reduction in or
winding up of the establishment; and

(iv) in respect of whom a
certificate of being a retrenched employee
has been issued by the Appointing
Authority but does not include a person
employed on ad hoc basis only."

21. Rules, 1975 initially, as enacted,
did not specifically contain any provision
giving any relaxation to "Retrenched
Employee" but Rule 13-A was inserted by
Notification dated 06.07.1977 for a period
of three years from the date of its
commencement and it reads as under:

"13
A.
Relaxation
for
retrenched employees.-(1) A retrenched
employee shall be given exemption from
the upper age-limit to the extent of the
period of service rendered by him to the
State Government together with the
period spent without a Government job as
a result of the retrenchment.

(2) A retrenched employee, who
on the date of his first appointment in the
service
of
the
State
Government
possessed the academic qualifications
prescribed on such date for the post now
being applied for, shall be deemed to
satisfy the requirement of academic
qualifications for such post.

(3) For the purposes of this
rule,
the
expression
"retrenched
employee" means a person who was
employed in any service or on any post
under the rule-making control of the
Governor whether in a substantive,
officiating or temporary capacity, and
had served continuously for a period of
not less than one year, and whose
services are, whether before or after the
commencement
of
these
rules,
terminated or liable to termination, on
account of reduction of establishment,
and in respect of whom a certificate of
being a retrenched employee has been
issued by the appointing authority
concerned, but does not include a
person who was appointed on an ad hoc
basis.

Explanation-
A
person
appointed in accordance with the
procedure prescribed in the recruitment
rules or orders applicable to the service
or post concerned shall be deemed to
have been appointed on an ad hoc
basis."
6 All. Ram Sanehi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
863

22. Consistent with 1975 Rules a
Government
Order
No.
27/2/1974-
Karmik-2 dated 6.7.1977 was published
containing
definition
of
"retrenched
employee" and on the same date, another
Government
Order
No.
41/2/1967-
Karmik-2 dated 6.7.1977 was published
for giving effect to the provisions of 1975
Rules and for guidance and clarification
of the concerned officials. The aforesaid
Government Order relevant for the
present purpose is reproduced as under:

^^'kkŒ laŒ&41@2@67&dkfeZd&2]
fnukad tqykbZ 6] 1977

fo"k;% jkT;k/khu lsokvksa esa oxZ&3 o 4 ds
NaVuh'kqnk deZpkfj;ksa dks [kikus dh O;oLFkkA

jkT;k/khu dk;kZy;ksa ds NaVuh'kqnk
deZpkfj;ksa dks Hkkoh fjfDr;ksa esa [kikus ds fy,
o"kZ 1967 esa ,d fu;ekoyh cukbZ xbZ Fkh] tks
vDVqcj] 1971 rd izHkkoh jghA mlds i'pkr
ferO;f;rk ds vk/kkj ij vf/k"Bkuksa esa deh fd;s
tkus vFkok vU; iz'kklfud dkj.kksa ls jkT; ds
fofHkUu dk;kZy;ksa esa oxZ 3 rFkk 4 ds deZpkfj;ksa
dh NaVuh djuk vfuok;Z gks x;k rFkk
Nvuh'kqnk deZpkfj;ksa dks [kikus dk iz'u 'kklu
ds le{k iqu% mifLFkr gks x;kA

2- bl lEcU/k esa eq>s ;g dhus dk
funsZ'k gqvk gS fd bl leL;k ij lE;d~ fopkj
djus ds mijkUr NaVuh'kqnk deZpkfj;ksa dks
jkT;k/khu dk;kZy;ksa 1⁄4vizkfof/kd rFkk yksd lsok
vk;ksx dh ifjf/k ds ckgj ds inksa1⁄2 esa gksus okyh
fjfDr;ksa es [kikus ds fy, 'kklu us vc
fuEufyf[kr fu.kZ; fy;s gSa%

1⁄4d1⁄2 vk;q lhek ds NwV&

,sls deZpkfj;ksa us ftrus o"kZ dh lsok
viuh Nvuh ds iwoZ dh gks rFkk ftruh vof/k
ds fy, og Nvuh ds dkj.k lsok ls ckgj jgs
gksa mrus o"kZ dh vk;q lhek ls mUgsa NwV iznku
dj nh tk;A

1⁄4[k1⁄2 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk ds NwV&

;fn ,sls deZpkjh viuh iwoZ fu;qfDr
ds le;] ftl in ds fy, og vc vH;FkhZ gSa
ml le; ml in dh fu/kkZfjr 'kSf{kd vgZrk
iwjh djrs gSaA

1⁄4x1⁄2 lqfo/kkvksa dh vof/k&

mi;qZDr lqfo/kk;sa bl 'kklukns'k ds
tkjh gksus ds fnukad ls 3 o"kZ ds fy, gh ekU;
jgsaxhA

1⁄4?k1⁄2
NVuh'kqnk
deZpkfj;ksa
dh
ifjHkk"kk&

NVuh'kqnk deZpkjh dh ifjHkk"kk ogh
gksxh tks dkfeZd vuqHkkx&2 dh vf/klwpuk
la[;k 27@2@1974 &dkfeZd 1⁄421⁄2 fnukad 6
tqykbZ] 1977 esa nh gqbZ gS vkSj tks lqyHk lnHkZ
gsrq uhps m)`r dh tkrh gSA

^^NVuh fd;k x;k deZpkjh** dk
rkRi;Z ml O;fDr ls gS tks jkT;iky ds fu;e
cukus ds fu;U=.k esa fdlh lsok esa ;k fdlh in
ij ekSfyd lhukiUu] ;k vLFkk;h :Ik ls
fu;ksftr Fkk vkSj ftlus de ls de ,d o"kZ
dh vof/k rd yxkrkj lsok dh gks vkSj ftldh
lsok;sa bl fu;ekoyh ds izkjEHk gksus ds iwoZ ;k
i'pkr vf/k"Bku esa deh fd;s tkus ds dkj.k
lekIr dh tk lds vkSj ftuds lEcU/k esa
lEc) fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh }kjk NVuh fd;k x;k
deZpkjh gksus dk izek.k&i= tkjh fd;k x;k gks]
fdUrq blesa ,slk O;fDr lfEefyr ugha gS ftls
rnFkZ vk/kkj ij fu;qDr fd;k x;k gksA

Li"Vhdj.k& lEc) lsok ;k ij ij
iz;ksx HkrhZ fu;ekoyh ;k vkns'kksa esa fofgr
izfdz;k ds vuqlkj fu;qDr O;fDr dks rnFkZ
vk/kkj ij fu;qDr fd;k x;k ugha le>k
tk;sxkA

3- ,sls NVuh'kqnk deZpkjh tks oxZ 3
1⁄4Vice csancellor lewg x1⁄2 ds fyfid oxhZ;
inksa] ftudk U;wure osrueku 200&320 :i;s
864 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
gSa rFkk prqFkZ oxZ 1⁄4vc lewg ?k1⁄2 ds os in
ftudk osrueku 165&215 :i;s gSa vkSj ftl
ij HkrhZ ftyk Lrjh; p;u lfefr;ksa ds ek/;e
ls dh tkrh gS] esa HkrhZ ds bPNqd gksa mudks
mi;qZDr lqfo/kk ds vUrxZr dsoy fu;fer p;uksa
esa vgZrk nsus ds fy, NwV nh tk;sxh ijUrq mUgsa
p;u esa dksbZ izkFkfedrk iznku ugha gksxhA
'kklukns'k la[;k 8@dkfeZd&1975 fnukad 22
uoEcj] 1975 esa tkjh fd;s x;s vkj{k.k lEcU/kh
vkns'kksa ij dksbZ izHkko ugha iM+sxk vkSj iwoZ dh
Hkkafr gh mudks dk;kZfUor fd;k tk;sxkA
rn~uqlkj ^^v/khuLFk dk;kZy; fyfid oxZ 1⁄4lh/kh
HkrhZ1⁄2 fu;ekoyh] 1975** rFkk ^^prqFkZ oxZ
deZpkjh lsok fu;ekoyh] 1975** esa vko';d
la'kks/ku dj fn;s x;s gSaA^^

"GO No. 41/2/67-Karmik-2

Dated: July 06, 1977

Subject: Provision for absorption of
retrenched employees of Class -III and IV
in the services under the State.

In
order
to
absorb
the
retrenched employees of the offices under
the State against future vacancies, rules
had been framed in the year 1967 which
remained in force upto October 1971.
Thereafter, on account of reduction in the
establishments necessitated by frugality
or for other administrative reasons, it has
become necessary to go for retrenchment
of Class -III and IV employees in several
offices of the State, and the question of
absorbing the retrenched employees has
arisen again before the Government.

2. In this respect I am directed
to say that upon due consideration to this
problem, the following decisions have
now been taken for the absorption against
the vacancies (except the technical post
and the posts beyond the purview of the
Public Service Commission) occurring in
the offices under the State:

(A) Exemption in age limit-

Exemption in the age limit be
accorded to the employees to the extent of
the period of service rendered by him
prior to retrenchment together with the
period of his being out of service due to
such retrenchment

(B) Relaxation in academic
qualification-

If such an employee, at the time
of his prior appointment, possessed the
educational qualification prescribed for
the post for which he is now a candidate.

(C) Period of relaxations -

The aforesaid relaxations shall
be effective up to three years from the
date of issuance of this Government order

(D) Definition of retrenched
employees:

The definition of retrenched
employee shall be the same as given in
Notification No. 27/2/1974-Karmik (2),
dated July 6, 1977 and as reproduced
herein below for ready reference:

"Retrenched employee" means a
person who was employed in any service
or on any post under the rule making
control of the government, whether in a
substantive, officiating or temporary
capacity, and had served continuously for
a period of not less than one year, and
whose services are, whether before or
after the commencement of these rules,
terminated or certified by concerned
appointing
authority
to
have
been
terminated due to reduction in the
establishment but does not include a
6 All. Ram Sanehi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
865
person who was appointed on an adhoc
basis.

Explanation
-
A
person
appointed
in
accordance
with
the
procedure prescribed in the recruitment
rules or orders applicable to the service
of the post concerned shall not be deemed
to have been appointed on adhoc basis.

3. In case of those retrenched
employees
who
are
desirous
of
recruitment to Class III (now called
Group C) clerical cadre posts carrying
the minimum pay scale of Rs. 200-320 or
to the posts of Class IV (now called
Group D) carrying the pay scale of Rs.
165-215,
recruitments
whereto
are
conducted by the district level selection
committees, exemptions as part of the
aforesaid relaxations shall be given to
them in respect of qualifications only in
regular selections but no preference shall
be given to them in selections. It shall not
have any effect on the orders related to
reservation issued through government
order no. 8/karmik-1975 dated 22nd
November, 1975 and such orders shall be
executed
as
earlier.
Accordingly,
necessary amendments have been effected
in the "Subordinate Offices Ministerial
Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1975"
and "Class-IV Employees Service Rules,
1975."

(English Translation by Court)

23. Rule 13-A expired after three
years and so the Government Order dated
06.07.1977. In order to continue with the
relaxation
in
age,
educational
qualification and other the GO No.
41/2/67-Karmik-2 dated 23.05.1981 was
issued for a period of three years wherein
the definition of "retrenched employee" as
notified on 06.07.1977 and modified on
18.10.1979 was reiterated. For ready
reference the aforesaid is being reproduced as under:

^^'kk-la- 41@2@67&dkfeZd&2]

fnukad 23 ebZ] 1981

fo"k;% jkT;k/khu lsokvksa esa oxZ 3 o 4 ds
NaVuh'kqnk deZpkfj;ksa dks [kikus dh O;oLFkkA

mi;qZDr
fo"k;d
lela[;d
'kklukns'k fnukad 6 tqykbZ] 1977 esa iznRr
lqfo/kkvksa dh ekU; vof/k 5 tqykbZ] 1980 dks
lekIr gks xbZ gSA 'kklu dh tkudkjh esa ;g
ckr vkbZ gS fd NVuh 'kqnk deZpkfj;ksa dh
leL;k dk funku iw.kZ :i ls ugha gks ldk gS
vr% bl fo"k; ij iqu% fopkj fd;k x;kA

2- eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS
fd bl leL;k ij leqfpr fopkjksijkUr
NaVuh'kqnk deZpkfj;ksa dks jkT;k/khu dk;kZy;ksa esa
gksus okyh Hkkoh fjfDrksa 1⁄4vizkfof/kd rFkk yksd
lsok vk;ksx dh ifjf/k ls ckgj ds inksa1⁄2 esa
[kikus ds fy;s 'kklu us fuEufyf[kr fu.kZ;
fy;s gS%

1⁄4d1⁄2 vf/kdre vk;q lhek ls NwV%

,sls deZpkfj;ksa us ftrus o"kZ viuh NaVuh
ls iwoZ dh gks rFkk ftruh vof/k ds fy;s og
NaVuh ds dkj.k lsok ls ckgj jgs gksa mrus o"kZ
dh vf/kdre vk;q lhek ls mUgsa NwV iznku dj
nh tk; ijUrq izfrcU/k ;g gS fd ;g vof/k
fdlh Hkh n'kk esa 10 o"kZ ls vf/kd ugha gksxhA

1⁄4[k1⁄2 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk ls NwV%

;fn ,sls deZpkjh viuh iwoZ fu;qfDr
ds le;] ftl in ds fy;s og vc vH;FkhZ gSa]
ml in dh fu/kkZfjr 'kSf{kd vgZrk j[krs Fks] rks
;g le>k tk;sxk fd os orZeku in ds fy;s
fu/kkZfjr 'kSf{kd vgZrk iwjh djrs gSaA

1⁄4x1⁄2 lqfo/kkvksa dh vof/k%
866 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

mi;qZDr lqfo/kk;s bl 'kklukns'k ds
tkjh gksus dh frfFk ls rhu o"kZ ds fy;s ekU;
jgsxhA

1⁄4?k1⁄2 ifjHkk"kk%

NVuh'kqnk deZpkjh dh ogh ifjHkk"kk
gksxh tks 'kklukns'k la[;k41@2@67&dkfeZd&2
fnukad 6 tqykbZ] 1977 esa nh gqbZ gS vkSj
lela[;d 'kklukns'k fnukad 18 vDVwcj] 1979
}kjk ;Fkk la'kksf/kr gS vkSj tks lqyHk lUnHkZ gsrq
uhps m)`r dh tkrh gS%

^^NaVuh fd;k x;k deZpkjh** dk
rkRi;Z ml O;fDr ls gS tks jkT;iky ds fu;e
cukus ds fu;a=.k esa fdlh lsok esa ;k in ij
ekSfyd] LfkkukiUu vFkok vLFkk;h :Ik ls
fu;ksftr Fkk vkSj ftlus de ls de 3 ekl dh
fujUrj lsok dh gks ijUrq dqy feykdj ;g
QqVdj [kf.Mr lsok Hkh ,d o"kZ dh iwjh gks xbZ
gks vkSj ftldh lsok;sa v/khuLFk dk;kZy;
fyfid oxZ 1⁄4lh/kh HkrhZ1⁄2 1⁄4prqFkZ la'kksa/ku1⁄2
fu;ekoyh] 1979 rFkk prqFkZ oxZ deZpkjh lsok
1⁄4r`rh; la'kks/ku1⁄2 fu;ekoyh 1979 ds izHkkoh gksus
ds iwoZ ;k i'pkr vf/k"Bku esa deh ds dkj.k
lekIr dj nh xbZ gks ;k lekIr dj nh tk;s
vkSj ftlds lEcU/k esa lEc) fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh
}kjk NVuh fd;k x;k deZpkjh gksus dk
izek.k&i= tkjh fd;k x;k gks fdUrq mlesa ,slk
O;fDr lfEefyr ugha gksxk ftls rnFkZ vk/kkj
ij fu;qDr fd;k x;k gksA

Li"Vhdj.k & lEc) lsok ;k in ij
iz;ksT; HkrhZ fu;ekoyh ;k vkns'kksa esa fofgr
izfdz;k ds vuqlkj fu;qDr O;fDr dks rnFkZ
vk/kkj ij fu;qDr fd;k x;k ugha le>k
tk;sxkA

3- ,sls NVuh'kqnk deZpkfj;ksa dks
mi;qZDr lqfo/kk ds vUrxZr dsoy fu;fer p;uksa
esa vgZrk nsus ds fy;s NwV nh tk;sxh ijUrq mUgsa
p;u esa dksbZ izkFkfedrk iznku ugha gksxhA

Lkfpo^^

"GO No. 41/2/67-Karmik-2

Dated: 23rd May, 1981

Subject: Provision for absorption of
retrenched employees of Class -III and IV
in the services under the State.

The period of applicability of
the relaxations provided in the even
numbered Government Order dated 6th
July,
1997
on
the
subject
above
mentioned, has elapsed on 5th July, 1980.
It has come to the notice of the
government that the problem of the
retrenched employees has not been
completely resolved and hence, this issue
has been reconsidered.

2. In this respect I am directed
to say that upon due consideration to this
problem, the following decisions have
now been taken for the absorption against
the vacancies (except the technical post
and the posts beyond the purview of the
Public Service Commission) occurring in
future in the offices under the State:

(A) Exemption from upper age
limit-

Exemption in the age limit be
accorded to the employees to the extent of
the period of service rendered by him
prior to retrenchment together with the
period of his being out of service due to
such retrenchment;however, this period
of relaxation shall not exceed 10 years at
any cost.

(B) Exemption from academic
qualification-

If such employees, at the time of
their prior appointment, possessed the
educational qualifications prescribed for
6 All. Ram Sanehi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
867
the post for which they are now
candidates, they shall be taken to have
academic qualifications prescribed for
the current posts.

(C) Period of relaxations -

The aforesaid relaxations shall
be effective up to three years from the
date of issuance of this Government
order.

The aforesaid relaxations shall
be effective for three years from the date
of issuance of this government order.

(D) Definition:

The definition of retrenched
employee shall be the same as given in
government
order
41/2/67-Karmik-2,
dated July 6, 1977 and as amended by the
even numbered government order dated
October 18, 1979 and as reproduced
herein below for ready reference:

"Retrenched employee" means a
person who was employed in any service
or on any post under the rule making
control of the government, whether in a
substantive, officiating or temporary
capacity, and had served continuously for
a period of not less than three months, but
had completed one year of total service
period
including
several
spells
of
interrupted service, and whose services
are,
whether
before
or
after
the
commencement of the Subordinate Offices
Clerical
Staff
(Direct
Recruitment)
(Fourth Amendment) Rules, 1979 and the
Class-IV
Employees
Services
(Third
Amendment) Rules, 1979, terminated, or
certified
by
concerned
appointing
authority as liable to termination but does
not include a person who was appointed
on an adhoc basis.

Explanation
-
A
person
appointed
in
accordance
with
the
procedure prescribed in the recruitment
rules or orders applicable to the service
of the post concerned shall not be deemed
to have been appointed on adhoc basis.

3. As part of the aforesaid
relaxation to such retrenched employees,
exemptions shall be given to them in
respect of qualifications only in regular
selections but no preference shall be
given to them in selection.

Secretary"

(English Translation by Court)

24. The aforesaid government order
was extended for a further period of three
years
vide
Government
Order
No.
41/2/1967-Karmik-2
dated
12.4.1983,
which reads as under:

^^'kkΠla[;k42@2@1967&dkfeZd&2]

fnukad 12 vizSy] 1983

fo"k;%& tux.kuk foHkkx ds NVuh fd;s
tkus okys deZpkfj;ksa dks jkT;k/khu lsokvksa
@inksa esa fu;qfDr gsrq fj;k;rA

mi;qZDr
fo"k;d
lela[;d
'kklukns'k fnukad 12 Qjojh] 1982 ds dze esa
eq>s ;g Li"V djus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd
mijksDr 'kklukns'k esa nh xbZ lqfo/kk;s jkT;
ljdkj ds v/khu dsoy mu lsokvksa@inksa ij
fu;qfDr gsrq vuqeU; gksaxh ftu ij lh/kh HkrhZ
yksd lsok ds ek/;e ls ugha gksrh gSA

mi lfpoA^^
868 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"Government Order No. 42-2-1967Karmik-2,

Dated 12th April, 1983

Subject:
Exemptions
to
the
retrenched
employee
of
the
census
department
for
appointment
to
the
services/posts under the State.

In
pursuance
of
the
even
numbered government order dated 12th
February, 1982 on the subject above
mentioned, I am directed to make it clear
that the relaxations given in the aforesaid
government order shall be given in
respect of appointments only to those
services/posts under the state government
direct recruitments whereto are not held
by the Public Service Commission.

Deputy Secretary"

(English Translation by Court)

25.