Atul
Kumar Nigam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors [1995] INSC 537 (27 September 1995)
Agrawal, S.C. (J) Agrawal, S.C. (J) Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J) S.C. Agrawal,
J.:
CITATION:
1996 SCC (7) 145 JT 1995 (7) 124 1995 SCALE (5)611
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
Leave
granted.
The appellant
was initially appointed as Registration Clerk on daily wage basis by the
District Registrar, District Jhansi, by order dated September 27, 1990. While the appellant was working as Registration Clerk, the
District Registrar, District Jhansi, issued a notice/advertisement for filling
up six posts of Registration Clerks on regular basis. Out of six posts five
posts were to be filled up from and amongst the general candidates and the
sixth post was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. The District Registrar,
District Jhansi constituted a Selection Committee
for the said appointment.
The
appellant appeared before the said Selection Committee on February 24, 1991 and was selected. He was appointed
on the post of Registration Clerk on the basis of said selection and he joined
as Registration Clerk on February
25, 1991, but by order
dated June 15, 1991 his services were terminated. The
appellant filed a writ petition (writ petition No. 17883/91) in the Allabahad
High Court which was heard alongwith special appeals and writ petitions of
other Registration Clerks employed on daily wage basis and the same was
dismissed by common judgment and order dated February 8, 1995.
It has
been urged on behalf of the appellant that his case differs from other cases dealt
with by the High Court inasmuch as he had been selected for regular appointment
by a duly constituted Selection Committee in accordance with the rules and the
High Court has not considered this aspect of the matter. In the counter
affidavit that has been filed on behalf of the respondents before this Court,
it has not been disputed that the Selection Committee was duly constituted by
the District Registrar, District Jhansi on February 24, 1991 but it is asserted
that while doing so the District Registrar, District Jhansi, did not comply
with the mandatory Provisions of Rule 22 of the Subordinate Offices Ministerial
Staff (District Recruitment) Rules, 1975 which had been replaced by the
Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (District Recruitment) Rules, 1985 as
amended upto date and thus there was defect in the procedure of the said
selection and the selection was void. This questions has not been gone into by
the High Court while dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. It is a
question which should have been considered by the High Court before dismissing
the writ petition of the appellant.
The
appeal is, therefore, allowed, the judgment and order of the High Court dated February 8, 1995 in so far as it relates to
dismissal of writ petition No. 17883/91 is set aside and the said writ petition
is remitted to the High Court to dispose of the same on merits. No costs.
Back