2024:UHC:6253
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Service Single No. 1646 of 2018
30th August, 2024
Lalita Bohra --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand Through Secretary, Technical
Education and others
--Respondents
With
Writ Petition (S/S) No.500 of 2019
Shelja Verma ---Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others ---Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Narain Dutt, learned S.C. for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Heard.
2. Since common questions of law and facts are
involved, hence these petitions have been taken up
together and decided by this common judgment. For the
sake of brevity, facts of WPSS No.1646 of 2018 alone are
being considered.
3. By means of this petition, petitioner has
sought indulgence of this Court for a direction to the
respondents to regularize the services of petitioner on the
post of Computer Programmer/Operator in Govt.
Polytechnics, Department of Technical Education,
Uttarakhand in terms of Daily Wages, Work-Charge,
Fixed Pay Scale, Part Time and Ad-hoc Employees
Regularization Rules, 2013 (for short “Regularization
Rules, 2013”) in a time-bound manner.
2024:UHC:6253
4. Facts of the case, shorn off unnecessary
details, are that petitioner was engaged as Computer
Programmer/Operator in Govt. Women’s Polytechnic
Kotabagh, District Nainital in the 2004 pursuant to an
advertisement issued by the said institution, and she
joined as such. The petitioner, under the Rules known
as ‘Uttarakhand Technical Education Department (Non-
Gazetted Technical) Service Rules 2008’ possesses the
educational qualification for being appointed on the post
of Computer Programmer/Operator. The said
qualification is quoted hereinbelow: -
“Bachelor and recognized Diploma in Computer
Application of minimum one year from Govt. of
India/State Govt.
Or
Recognized Diploma in any discipline of Engg. and
Recognized Diploma in Computer Application of
minimum one year from Govt. of India/State Govt.”
5. The petitioner admittedly fulfills the aforesaid
qualification and there is no impediment in the
regularization of petitioner on the said post insofar as the
educational qualification is concerned. The petitioner
further contends in the writ petition that she has been
appointed against a sanctioned and vacant post of
Computer Programmer/Operator. Her name was short-
listed for placement before the Regularization Committee
on 24.09.2016. However, her regularization could not
take place for the reason that Regularization Rules of
2013 were stayed by a Division Bench of this Court in
WPSS No.616 of 2018 (Narendra Singh v. State). It is
submitted by learned Counsel for petitioner that the only
impediment which was in the way of petitioner’s
regularization was stay of Regularization Rules of 2013,
but by the lapse of time, the said writ petition came to be
decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment
2024:UHC:6253
dated 22.02.2024 and the stay order was accordingly
vacated. Now, according to learned counsel, there is no
difficulty with the respondent-State to regularize the
petitioner on the post of Computer Programmer
/Operator.
6. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that
petitioner was engaged on contractual basis for a limited
period, and there was no assurance ever been given to
the petitioner for her regularization.
7. Having considered the submissions made by
learned Counsel of parties and going through the
material available on record, it transpires that petitioner
has been working regularly, without any break, with the
respondent-Department since the year 2004 and she has
spent around 20 years as a contractual employee of the
respondent Department. Further, the petitioner’s
engagement as Computer Programmer/Operator is
against a sanctioned and vacant post and she was
engaged after following a due process of law by issuing
the advertisement.
8. Since petitioner has been working for last 20
years uninterruptedly with the respondent –Department,
it can be culled out that the nature of work with the
respondent Department, which the petitioner is
performing, is perennial in nature, and the services of
petitioner are certainly required by the Department.
Moreover, not regularizing the petitioner who has worked
for more than 20 years with the Department is nothing
but a kind harassment of petitioner’s youth and
education.
9. Furthermore, from the pleadings of parties, it
transpires that petitioner could not be regularized despite
her being short-listed for regularization in the year 2016
2024:UHC:6253
only for the reason that there was a stay of regularization
Rules of 2013, however, that impediment too no longer
exists. The sum and substance of aforesaid discussion is
that there should be no hesitation now to regularize the
services of petitioner.
10. It needs to be mentioned that same is the
condition with the petitioner in connected WPSS No.500
of 2019.
11. As a result, both these petitions are allowed. A
writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent-
Department to consider the claim of petitioners of both
these writ petitions for regularization in terms of
Regularization Rules of 2013.
12. Costs easy.
13. All pending application(s) stand disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
30.08.2024
Rdang
RAJEEV DANG DDU21sDD e .5 T iN Ba 5 r g a T t7i . : 4 a i e 3 A t 2 c l . : 9 a 2 N = 0 R 2 l 60 l 0 IA u 0 yN 1= Fm K 2 c s, 2 9 4 H 8 io bD g 6 . c A= 0 e 3 n A a 8 NH r d e 2 B= . Da 3 Id 9 C G 6 6 0 5 , 7 b 3 H f 7 1 c AF y ,6 8 C 6B p R d : O EC5 A of 6 0C U 8s J 6 : t E 1 d R 3 3a E C b T 3 lA V C A b O + 1 o 3 9 D D 0 F d 5 1 A 5 De U 8 9 ' N 3 =4D 4 TG 0 4 42 T , ' 8 e6 c A n9 03 R 2 c0 = A 5 E0 R K 8 E1 A H b D, J s A 9 E6te N EB=d V8 D U2 1D , T5 F o T A 9 0 u Ae N4 = Rc 3G H A3 D dK I 7 G 8H7 H 0A8 0 C BNf 3 4 O D7 1 U ,D 9 R a 7 T 1 4 1 O D 9 F 2 9 f