Sanjay
Gupta & Ors Vs. State of U.P. & Ors [1995] INSC 536 (27 September 1995)
Agrawal, S.C. (J) Agrawal, S.C. (J) Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J) S.C. Agrawal,
J.:
CITATION:
JT 1995 (7) 122 1995 SCALE (5)610
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
Leave
granted.
The
appellants in this appeal were employed as Registration Clerks on daily wage
basis in the office of Sub-Registrar, District Jhansi on various periods,
during the years 1990 and 1991. The case of the appellants is that in response
to the notice inviting applications for appointment on the post of Registration
Clerks, the appellants had submitted their applications and they were required
to appear before the Selection Committee constituted under relevant rules on February 24, 1991. Their claim is that other persons
whose names were sponsored by the Employment Exchange were also called and that
the appellants were selected by the Selection Committee and on the basis of the
said selection, they were appointed as Registration Clerks by the District
Registrar by order dated March
18, 1991. It is
claimed that the said appointment of the appellants was approved by the
Inspector General of Registration on April 15, 1991. Subsequently by order dated May 27, 1991 the Inspector General of
Registration issued an order directing the District Registrar to terminate the
services of Registration Clerks employed on daily wage basis with immediate
effect. In pursuance of the said directions, the District Registrar, District Jhansi,
issued orders terminating the services of the appellants with effect from May 27, 1991 by treating them as Registration
Clerks employed on daily wage basis. The case of the appellants is that they
were appointed on regular basis after being duly selected in accordance with
the rules. They filed a writ petition (Writ Petition No. 17785/91) in the
Allahabad High Court challenging the order terminating their services. The said
writ petition was heard alongwith other matters of the Registration Clerks who
had been appointed on daily wage basis and was disposed of by common order
dated February 8, 1995.
The
grievance of the appellants is that their case stands on a different footing
inasmuch as they were not employed as Registration Clerks on daily wage basis
but had been duly selected by the Selection Committee constituted under the
rules and they had been appointed on regular basis by the District Registrar,
District Jhansi, and the said appointment had also been approved by the
Inspector General of Registration. The learned counsel for the appellants has
submitted that in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in
the writ petition before the High Court the factual averments made by the
petitioners in the writ petition were not disputed. In the counter affidavit
filed on behalf of the respondents in reply to special leave petition before
this Court, it has, however, been stated that the appointment of the appellants
had been made without complying with the provisions of rule 22 of the
Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (District Recruitment) Rules, 1985
inasmuch as the applications were accepted directly without issuing an
advertisement in the daily newspaper as required under the provisions of the
said rule. It has been submitted that as a result of the said defect the
selection was defective ab initio. This question has not been examined by the
High Court and the High Court has dismissed the writ petition without going
into the said question. This is a matter which requires consideration by the
High Court.
The
appeal is, therefore, allowed, the judgment and order of the High Court dated February 8, 1995 in so far as it relates to writ
petition No. 17785 of 1991 is set aside and the said writ petition is remitted
to the High Court for consideration on merits. No costs.
Back