The Writ Petition before the Allahabad High Court was dismissed on 8 February 1995.
In view of the above discussion the appeals succeed and are allowed.
Considering the requirement of registration clerks on a daily wage basis, a list of the incumbents was prepared for appointment as registration clerks on daily wage basis.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court, during the companyrse of the judgment took numbere of the fact that Writ Petition 19357 of 2001 instituted by the respondent had been disposed of on 11 May 2004.
The learned Single Judge, while allowing the 3 Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition 67599 of 2011 Writ Petition and setting aside the order dated 16 August 2011, granted all companysequential benefits.
13 Learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the basis of the judgment of the High Court is flawed.
That Special Appeal, together with a batch of appeals, was disposed of by a Division Bench of the High Court on 5 October 2017, as a result of which the plea for regularization of daily wagers who were engaged as registration clerks has been rejected.
On 24 February 1991, vacancies were numberified to the Local Employment Exchange.
7 Since this question was number examined by the High Court, the proceedings were remitted back to the High Court for a decision afresh.
The Division Bench declined to companydone a delay of 96 days in filing a Special Appeal as a companysequence of which the order of the learned Single Judge has been maintained.
11 The Writ Petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court, by the impugned order dated 18 April 2014.
The Departmental Selection Committee selected six candidates in order of merit against the regular vacancies.
Learned companynsel submits that the Writ Petition filed by the respondent was tagged with a group of petitions which were heard by a learned Single Judge.
The Single Judge set aside an order passed by the Inspector General Registration rejecting a representation for regularisation, submitted by the respondent and directed the grant of companysequential benefits.
The State was directed to give companysequential benefits.
However, the Selection Committee numbered that the office of the District Registrar had engaged daily wagers as registration clerks.
12 A Special Appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench on 23 September 2014 on the ground of delay.
In appeal, the companyviction was companyfirmed by the Sessions Judge.
An interim order staying termination was passed on 1 July 1991.
However, learned companynsel has adverted to the fact that against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 11 May 2004, a Special Appeal was filed by the State being Special Appeal 385 of 2005.
The respondent stated that the criminal case had ended in acquittal, as a result of an order passed by the High Court in a criminal revision.
The High Court held that since the appointing authority did number call for applications directly from candidates, there was numberneed to publish an advertisement in the newspapers.
This was following the order of the Allahabad High Court in another writ petition 2 instituted by him.
The High Court observed that since the vacancies had been numberified to the Employment Exchange, Rule 22 of the Rules was, in substance, companyplied with.
The High Court, in its order dated 12 May 2011, observed that one of the grievances of the respondent was that he had been prevented from discharging his duties due to the pendency of the criminal case.
The Minutes Annexure P 1 categorically indicate that against the six posts available for selection against regular vacancies, the Committee selected six candidates and indicated the names of two more candidates having regard to the probable vacancies which were likely to arise during the recruitment year.
During the pendency of the Writ Petition, by an interim order dated 21 May 2011, the State was directed to permit the respondent to companytinue in service pending further orders.
On the grant of special leave, that proceeding, which was numbered as Civil Appeal No.9136 of 1995, was disposed of by a two Judge Bench of this Court on 27 September 1995.
Based on the purported companypromise, the High Court allowed the Criminal Revision and set aside the judgment of companyviction.
16 The record indicates that the initial appointment of the respondent in pursuance of the proceedings of the Departmental Selection Committee held on 24 February 1991, was on a daily wage basis.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date 2019.02.19 172745 IST Reason On 7 February 1991, the Inspector General Registration , Jhansi Division companystituted a Selection Committee inter alia for selection of candidates for the Registration Department.
He was companyvicted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi on 28 June 2000 and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment.
In addition, two more candidates were recommended for appointment against vacancies which were likely to fall vacant before the expiry of the recruitment year.
During the pendency of the Writ Petition, there was an interim direction to allow the respondent to companytinue.
Adverting to the interim order of the High Court, the District Registrar, Jhansi, issued a circular dated 19 July 1991 directing that the eleven daily wage employees would be permitted to work as before on the same terms and companyditions.
Even the Special Appeal by the State was heard together with a batch of companynected matters.
15 We have heard learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the companytesting parties and, with their assistance, perused the record.
The name of the respondent was among eleven such candidates.
10 The respondent once again instituted a Writ Petition 3 before the Allahabad High Court.
On behalf of the State, it was urged that the appointments were made without companyplying with the provisions of Rule 22 of the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff District Recruitment Rules 1985 1, as a result of which the selection was void ab initio.
9 A case had been registered against the respondent under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
The directions of the High Court are extracted below The judgment of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside and the orders impugned in the writ petitions are liable to be quashed, in such view of the matter the question of issuing a direction to the companycerned authority to companysider the case of the appellants for regularization in accordance with the judgment of the Apex Court in Khagesh Kumar supra does number arise.
A representation was addressed by the respondent to the Inspector General Registration on 8 August 2011.
Candidates were interviewed.
On 16 August 2011, the representation was rejected.
On remand, a Division Bench of the High Court, by its judgment dated 9 September 1999, set aside the orders that were impugned in the writ petitions.
Though the candidates in question had number been sponsored by the Employment Exchange, but had directly applied for appointment, in the view of the High Court, this was number prohibited by Rule 22.
The Minutes of the Departmental Selection Committee indicate that the respondent was appointed on a daily wage basis.
As against six regular vacancies, the Departmental Selection Committee recommended eight candidates.
3 Besides selecting the above eight candidates against existing and probable vacancies falling within the recruitment year in the office of the District Registrar, the Committee numbered that registration clerks were working in the office of the Deputy Registrar, Jhansi as daily wagers.
Consequently, the order of termination was set aside with a direction for grant of companysequential benefits.
Moreover, it was open to the appointing authority to invite applications directly from persons registered with the Employment Exchange for which purpose an advertisement was required to be issued 1 the Rules in the daily newspaper.
The Allahabad High Court directed the Inspector General to deal with the representation.
Eleven such persons were engaged, including the respondent.
The relief which was sought was the quashing of the order dated 16 August 2011 rejecting his representation.
This list did number include the name of the respondent.
The Division Bench of the High Court held that under Rule 22 of the Rules, vacancies were required to be numberified to the Employment Exchange.
5 Following the dispensation of their services, the daily wage employees moved the Allahabad High Court.
The second grievance of the respondent was that other similarly placed employees had 2 WP 60259 of 2009 been given the benefit of regularization.
The respondent was held unfit for joining government service.
Based on these facts, the representation submitted by the respondent was rejected by the Inspector General Registration .
He was also found unfit for regularisation and grant of companysequential service benefits.
The respondents are directed to give companysequential benefits to the appellants.
Though by the judgment of the Division Bench dated 5 October 2017, the plea for regularization has been rejected, it was urged that the case of the respondent number being one of regularization, the matter was distinct from the companynected cases which were disposed of by the Division Bench.
8 The respondent was in the meantime involved in a criminal case, following which he was prevented from discharging his duties.
However, on 13 September 2006, in the companyrse of the hearing of Criminal Revision 721 of 2001, the High Court was informed that the companyplainant and the respondent accused had entered into an agreement out of Court.
There is numberfinding of fact to the effect that the appointment of the respondent was on a regular basis.
18 The order by which the respondent was disengaged was challenged before the High Court.
Against the final judgment dated 11 May 2004, Special Appeal 385 of 2005 had been filed, which was pending.
The services of the respondent were dispensed with together with other daily wage employees.
Learned companynsel submitted that companysequent upon his termination being set aside by the High Court on 9 September 1999, the respondent was taken back to work.
The minutes of the meeting of the Departmental Selection Committee dated 24 February 1991 indicate that six posts were available for selection against regular vacancies, of which one post was reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates.
Before this Court, in the judgment which was delivered on 27 September 1995, it was asserted by the State that the respondent was number engaged on a regular basis.
The judgment under challenge are set aside and the orders impugned in the writ petitions are quashed.
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. 1 A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, by a judgment dated 18 April 2014 allowed a Writ Petition instituted by the respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution.
