COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 5922/2001 (Old No. 43536/1998) Km. Deoki Manral …….Petitioner Versus State of U.P. through Secretary, Secondary Education, Lucknow & Others …….Respondents Sri Sharad Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Bina Pande, learned Standing Counsel (U.P.) for the respondent no. 1 & 2. Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned Brief Holder for the respondent no. 3 & 4. 25th June, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer (Economics) in Mahadevi Kanya Pathshala Inter College, Dehradun. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Lecturer Grade in September, 1988 in the said institution on consolidated monthly salary and ever since then she is working on the same post. Petitioner is B.Ed. and M.A. (Economics) as well as M.A. (Sociology). In the counter affidavit, it has not been disputed that the petitioner is teaching in said institution since September, 1988. 2. In the counter affidavit, it has been contended that the petitioner is not a regularly selected candidate and, therefore, she is not entitled for regularization. It has been further contended that she was appointed by the Committee of Management and her appointment was 2 never approved by the concerned authority. But it is undisputed that the petitioner is teaching in the said institution since September, 1988 and has thus put in more than 10 years of continuous service. Petitioner has also filed experience certificate on the record. Petitioner has also alleged that some similarly situated persons were appointed exactly in the same manner and their services have been regularized as Lecturer and Assistant Teachers in L.T. Grade. But the case of the petitioner was ignored. 3. Reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, wherein at para 53, the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to provide that those temporary employees or daily wagers who have put in service of ten years or more, for them appropriate scheme shall be framed and they shall be regularized in phased manner. The extract of para 53 is quoted below: “One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by 3 this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” 4. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and above legal proposition, the writ petition is finally disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in consonance with the guidelines given by the Apex Court in Umadevi’s case within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 25.6.2008 Prabodh 4