2025:UHC:1124 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS No.3317 of 2017 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Dushyant Mainali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Atul Bahuguna and Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. Petitioner was appointed as Kahar/ Sweeper in District Probation Home, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in the year 2006. The said appointment was made as a Daily Wager. According to petitioner, since he has served continuously as Kahar/ Sweeper in District Probation Home, ever since his appointment, therefore, he has earned a right to be considered for regularization. 3. Earlier, petitioner filed a writ petition, which was disposed of by this Court with liberty to petitioner to make representation, claiming regularization. His representation has been rejected by Director, Social Welfare vide order dated 30.08.2017, which is enclosed as Annexure No.7 to the writ petition. The reason assigned for rejecting petitioner’s claim for regularization is that there is no post of Sweeper sanctioned in District Probation Home, Rudrapur. Petitioner has challenged the said rejection order in this writ petition. 4. In paragraph no.5 of the writ petition, it is stated that one post of Kahar/Sweeper was created for District Probation Home, Udham Singh Nagar vide Government Order dated 06.10.1997, which is still lying vacant and services of the petitioner could have been regularized against the said post. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by Director, Social Welfare. Reply given to 2025:UHC:1124 paragraph no.5 of the writ petition is very evasive and the statement made by petitioner in his writ petition that the post of Kahar/ Sweeper was created vide Government Order dated 06.10.1997, has not been denied. Thus, it amounts to an admission. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to Annexure No.C.A-1 to the counter affidavit filed by Director, Social Welfare, which is a copy of Government Order dated 06.10.1997. Based on the said document, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one post of Kahar was created for Government Probation Homes, established in six different districts of erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh, including District Udham Singh Nagar. The post of Kahar is mentioned at item no.6 of the said document. Thus, this Court finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that one regular post of Kahar was sanctioned vide Government Order dated 06.10.1997. 7. Since the counter affidavit is absolutely silent as regards availability of the post of Kahar and also availability of vacancy on the said post and the documents indicate that one post was created in District Udham Singh Nagar, therefore, the reason assigned by Director, Social Welfare for rejecting petitioner’s claim, cannot be sustained. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.08.2017 passed by Director, Social Welfare is quashed. The Competent Authority in the department is directed to re-consider petitioner’s claim for regularization under applicable Regularization Rules, within a period of four months’ from the date of production of certified copy of this order. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 18.02.2025 Arpan