IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 02 of 2010 (SB) Kailash Chandra .……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others .………. Respondents Present: Mr. B.S. Negi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. Date of decision: 10-02-2010 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner claims regularization in Government service on account of the fact, that he has already rendered 12 years ad hoc service. The representation, filed by the petitioner claiming regularization dated 25.08.2009, has been appended to the writ petition as annexure no. 6. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, who has entered appearance on behalf of respondents, states that at the present juncture, a committee has been constituted under which the claim of the petitioner for regularization can be considered. It is further submitted, that the State Government has constituted a committee in terms of decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others versus Umadevi (3) and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 and more particularly in terms of the observation recorded in paragraph 53 thereof, which is being extracted hereunder: “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 regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred 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 2 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 regularisation, 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 regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” It is submitted that the State Government would be ready and willing to examine the claim of the petitioner for regularization in furtherance of his representation dated 25.08.2009 on the basis of the policy determined by the committee referred to herein above. In view of the above, we consider it just and appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition without dwelling into the merits of the controversy by requiring the respondents to consider and pass an appropriate order on the representation filed by the petitioner on 25.08.2009, based on the policy of the State Government, finalized on the basis of recommendations of the committee referred to above. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 10.02.2010 10.02.2010 Amit