http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SATYENDRA NATH BAJPAI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/09/1995

BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  674            JT 1995 (7)   128  1995 SCALE  (5)624

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                        J U D G M E N T S.C. AGRAWAL, J.      Leave granted.      The appellant  was appointed  as Registration  Clerk on daily wage  basis by  order dated  February 14, 1985. He had worked as  Registration Clerk  on daily  wage  basis  during various periods  from February  14, 1985  to March 31, 1990. His services  were not  availed  thereafter.  The  appellant filed a  writ petition  (writ petition No. 849/95 [8030/90]) in the  Allahabad High  Court wherein he claimed that he has been  shown  at  serial  No.  1  in  the  approved  list  of candidates  issued   by  the  District  Registrar,  District Hardoi, and  that the  service of Pradyumna Kumar and Maghad Prasad whose  names were  shown at  serial  Nos.  5  and  14 respectively in  the said list have been regularised but the appellant has not been regularised. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in the said writ petition in the  High Court,  it was  not denied  that persons  whose names were shown below the name of the appellant in the list of  approved   candidates  had   been  regularised  but  the appellant had  not been appointed though there was a vacancy in District  Hardoi where  he could  be absorbed.  The  High Court, on  March 30, 1993, passed an interim order directing that the  appellant be  paid regular  scale of  salary which other Registration.  Clerks were  getting with  effect  from April 1,  1993. The  grievance of  the appellant is that the writ petition  of the  appellant was heard by the High Court alongwith  special  appeals  and  writ  petitions  of  other Registration Clerks appointed on daily wage basis and by the common judgment  dated February 8, 1995 the writ petition of the appellant  has been  dismissed. The  learned counsel for the appellant  has also  placed reliance  on the decision of the High  Court in Rajiv Kumar Shukla v. District Registrar, Hardoi & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 6167 of 1990) dated July 2, 1990 wherein  direction has  been given  that the said Rajiv

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

Kumar Shukla  who was shown at serial No. 34 in the approved list of  candidates be  considered for appointment according to rules  against the post which shall said become available in District Hardoi and in pursuance of the said order he has been appointed on regular basis.      The High  Court while  dismissing the  writ petition of the appellant  has not  considered the  aforementioned facts relating to the case of the appellant. We are of the opinion that the  writ petition  of the  appellant should  have been considered  by   the  High   Court  in   the  light  of  the circumstances referred to above.      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.  849/95 (8030/90) filed  by the  appellant is set aside and the said writ  petition   is  remitted   to  the   High   Court   for consideration on merits. No costs.