http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13  

PETITIONER: KHAGESH KUMAR & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/09/1995

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

CITATION:  1996 AIR  417            1995 SCC  Supl.  (4) 182  JT 1995 (7)   545        1995 SCALE  (6)102

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T S.C. AGRAWAL , J. :      Delay   condoned    in   S.L.P.(C)    No.   22726-29/95 [C.C.No.3559/95].      These petitions  for special  leave to appeal arise out of judgment  dated February  8, 1995  passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in various special appeals and writ  petitions involving  common questions  relating to regularisation of Registration Clerks employed on daily wage basis in  the Registration  Department of  the Government of Uttar Pradesh.      Under  the   U.P.  Registration   Manual   (hereinafter referred to  as ’the Manual’) provision is made in paragraph 94-A for  appointment to  the post of Registration Clerks in Sub-registrar’s offices  and in District Registrar’s offices by the  District Registrar.  In paragraph  95 it is provided that  the   strength  and   remuneration   of   registration establishments shall vary according to the amount of work to be performed  in each  office and  will  undergo  periodical review. Under  paragraph 96  power has been conferred on the Inspector General  of  Registration  to  sanction  temporary establishments within  the limits of budget provision and up to a  rate of  pay not  exceeding Rs. 150 per mensem in each case subject  to the  conditions precribed in clauses (a) to (d). The  District Registrar  has  also  been  empowered  to sanction,  with  the  previous  approval  of  the  Inspector General, the  temporary appointment  of extra  clerks in the Registration offices  under his  control up to a rate of pay not exceeding  Rs. 60  per mensem  in each  case but  before sanctioning the  District Registrar  is required to see that the permanent  clerks have  been working  up to the standard prescribed by the preceding rule. Paragraph 97 requires that a list  of approved  candidates for the post of registration clerks shall  be maintained  by each  District Registrar and that except  with the  previous sanction  of  the  Inspector

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13  

General, at  no time the number of enlisted candidates shall exceed the  number fixed  by the  inspector General for each registration  district   according  to  the  needs  of  each district. The  said list  of approved candidates is required to be  revised by  the District  Registrar annually  in  the month of  January. In  the said  rule provision is also made prescribing  the   conditions  which   are  required  to  be fulfilled by  candidates  for  enlistment  as  well  as  the grounds on which the names of candidates once brought on the list may  be removed.  It is  also prescribed that permanent appointment to the post of registration clerks shall be made from amongst  the enlisted  candidates strictly by seniority and that  officiating or  temporary chances  of more  than a month’s duration  shall be  given to  enlisted candidates by rotation.      Apart from  the permanent  and temporary establishments referred to  in paragraphs  95  and  96  of  the  Manual,  a practice was  in vogue  to appoint  Registration  Clerks  on daily wage  basis for  the speedy  disposal of  the  pending arrears of  documents  in  the  Registration  offices.  Such appointments  were   authorised  by  the  Governor  for  the particular year  only subject  to  the  condition  that  the posting of  Registration Clerks on daily wage basis shall in no case  exceed three  months in the year. One such order is contained in  G.O. dated  December 23,  1987 which  reads as under :      "G.O.No.  SR4353/X312(1)  (O)  82  dated      23.12.87      From :      Shri Prem Shankar      Joint Secretary, Finance      Stamp and Registration Section      Government of U.P., Lucknow.      To      Inspector General  of Registration Uttar      Pradesh, Allahabad           Sub  :Appointment   of  daily  wage                clerks for purpose of disposal                of  arrears  of  documents  in                Registration Offices Sir,           With reference  to your D.O. letter      No.  85101/VA-429  dated  26.11.1987,  I      have been  directed  to  inform  that  a      result of  arrear  of  copying  work  in      various  Registration   Offices  of  the      State undue delay is being caused in the      return  of  original  documents  to  the      parties. Consequently,  the parties  are      being put  to inconvenience  the Hon’ble      Governor has  therefore been  pleased to      sanction post  of Clerks  on daily  wage      basis @ 20/- (Rupees Twenty) per working      day for  the purpose  of speedy disposal      of the  present arrear  of documents  in      registration Offices  on  the  following      terms and conditions :-      (1)  The  concerned  District  Registrar      with  prior   permission   of   District      Magistrate may appoint clerks in minimum      possible number  in view  of unavoidable      necessity  and   ensure  in  every  case      disposal  of  all  documents  in  arrear      within a period of three months.      (2)  The  standard  of  work  of  clerks

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13  

    appointed on  daily wage  basis  be  the      same  as  that  of  regularly  appointed      clerks. If  the output  of work  on  any      working  day   is  less   than  standard      prescribed than  in that  case his wages      shall be  liable to  be reduced  in  the      same proportion.      (3)  The disbursement  of wages  to  the      daily wage  clerks  will  be  made  only      after   the    concerned   Sub-Registrar      certified that  on each  working day the      work done by the daily wage clerk is not      less than the prescribed standard.      (4)  With a  view to ensure that copying      work does  not  fall  in  to  arrear  in      future, weekly  monitoring will  be done      by District Registrars.      (5)  The posting  of daily  wage  clerks      shall in  no case  exceed  three  months      during the course of a financial year.      (6)  The District Registrar will prepare      a list  of candidates for appointment to      the post  of daily  wage clerks  in  the      District and  the  appointment  will  be      made on  the basis  of list  prepared in      the last year’s examination.      (7)  The District  Registrar will report      to the  Government and  to the Inspector      General of Registration, U.P., Allahabad      from time to time about the pending work      in the district.      (8)  The expenditure  shall be  made  in      financial year  1987 from  serial No. 81      head  of   account   2030   Stamps   and      Registration under  Non-Plan Expenditure      and shall be borne from savings. Here it      is  also  made  clear  that  the  entire      responsibility of  keeping the  work  in      Sub Registrar  Office upto-date shall be      that of  the District Registrar and they      will be responsible for pending work.           This order is being issued with the      consent of  the Finance  Department D.O.      letter    No.    E-4/11541/X-87    dated      23.12.1987.                          Yours faithfully,                               sd/-                          (Prem Shankar)                          Joint Secretary"      It has  been stated  that similar orders were issued in each year  and that  such appointments were being made since 1983-84. The petitioners in these cases are persons who were appointed on daily wage basis for short period/periods in an year and  on the  expiry of  the period  their services were terminated. Some of them were appointed on the same basis in the next succeeding year or after a gap of one or two years.      On  May   12,  1978   the  Uttar  Pradesh  Registration Department  (District   Establishment)  Ministerial  Service Rules, 1978  (hereinafter referred  to as  ’the 1978 Rules’) were published.  The 1978  Rules provide  for recruitment to various  category   of  posts   in  the   U.P.  Registration Department (District Establishment) Ministerial Service. The post of  registration clerk  is a  post falling  in the said service. The  1978 Rules provide for appointment on the post of  registration   clerks  by   direct  recruitment  and  by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13  

promotion  from   amongst  Group   ’D’   employees.   Direct recruitment on permanent as well as officiating or temporary vacancies was  required to  be made  in accordance  with the procedure laid  down in  the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff [Direct  Recruitment]  Rules,  1975.  By  notification dated September 9, 1992 [published in the U.P. Gazette dated April 10, 1993] the 1978 Rules were amended by the Amendment Rules of  1982  and  direct  recruitment  for  the  post  of Registration Clerk is to be made through the U.P.Subordinate Services Selection  Commission on  the basis  of competitive examination conducted by the Commission.      In 1989  the Registration  Act, 1908 was amended by the State legislature  of U.P.  and Section  32- A  was inserted whereby it  was provided  that the  document  presented  for registration should  be accompanied  by such  number of true photostat copies  there of as may be prescribed by the rules under Section  69. There  was a  further  amendment  of  the Registration Act,  1908 by  U.P. Act  No. 27 of 1994 whereby Section 32-B was inserted. By the said provision it has been prescribed that  in such  cases as  may be  notified by  the State Government  every document  and the translation of the document  referred   to  in   Section  19,   presented   for registration shall  be accompanied  by a  true copy there of which shall  be neatly  and legibly  printed,  lithographed, type written  or otherwise  prepared on only one side of the paper  and  that  such  true  copy  shall  be  laminated  in accordance with  the procedure  laid down in the section. It has been stated that U.P.Act No. 27 of 1994 has been brought into  force   with  effect   from  October   1,  1994   vide notification dated September 28, 1994.      Prior to  March 20,  1991 the  appointing authority for registration clerks  under the  1978 Rules  was the District Registrar but by notification dated March 20, 1991 the rules were amended  and  the  Inspector  General  of  Registration became the  appointing authority.  On  March  24,  1991  the Inspector   General   of   Registration   issued   a   press Notification inviting  applications for  appointment to  the posts of Registration Clerks.      A number  of writ petitions were filed in the Allahabad High Court  by persons who had worked as registration clerks on daily wage basis in the past or who were actually working as Registration  Clerks on  daily  wage  basis  wherein  the petitioners sought  regularisation of  their appointment  on the post  of registration  clerk and  prayed for quashing of the Press notification inviting applications for appointment on the  post of  registration clerks.  Many  of  these  writ petitions had  been disposed  of by learned single Judges of the High  Court and  special appeals against these judgments were pending  before the  Division Bench  while  other  writ petitions were  pending for  disposal before  learned single Judges. In  a large  number of cases interim orders had been passed directing  that the petitioners in the writ petitions may be allowed to continue in service during the pendency of the writ petitions. One such writ petition (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3721/90, Majeed & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.) filed at  the Lucknow  Bench of  the  High  Court  had  been allowed by  a learned  single Judge (S.H.A. Raza J.) and the special  leave   petition  (Civil)  No.  ....../93  [CC  no. 121212/91] filed  against the said judgment was dismissed on the ground  of delay by this Court by order dated August 10, 1993. All  the special  appeals and writ petitions that were pending in  the High  Court at  Allahabad  as  well  at  the Lucknow Bench  were taken  up and  were disposed  of by  the Division Bench  of the  High Court  by the impugned judgment dated February 8, 1995.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13  

    On behalf of the petitioners, it was claimed before the High Court  that they  had been regularly selected by a duly constituted Selection Committee and their appointment should be treated  as regular appointment. This claim was, however, contested by  the State.  The High  Court rejected  the said claim of  the petitioners  and held  that nothing  had  been shown that the appointment of the petitioners was made after selection  through   a  Selection   Committee.   The   other contention that  was urged  on  behalf  of  the  petitioners before the  High Court  was that  the petitioners  had  been working on  daily wage  basis for  a number  of  years  and, therefore, they were entitled to be regularised on the post. The said  contention was  also rejected by the High Court on the view  that none  of the  petitioners were  either ad hoc employees or  even daily wagers continuously for one year or for 240  days as is generally claimed by the persons seeking regularisation  even   in  industrial   establishments  and, furthermore the  petitioners did  not fall  in  any  of  the categories referred to by this Court in the State of Haryana v.  Piara   Singh,  1992   (1)   SCC   118,   as   entitling regularisation. The High Court has held that in every one of the writ  petitions none  of the petitioners had worked even for more  than a  few weeks or at best for a few months in a year and consequently the entire edifice of the claim of the petitioners  seeking  regularisation  was  knocked  out.  As regards the advertisement dated March 24, 1991 issued by the State inviting  applications for  appointment on the post of Registration  Clerks   it  was   stated  on  behalf  of  the respondents before  the High  Court  that  in  view  of  the amendments which  have been  made in  the Registration  Act, 1908, the  State  does not need any more Registration Clerks and that no further steps have been taken for recruitment on the basis of the said advertisement. The High Court has held that mere  advertisement in  a paper  about some posts lying vacant does not confer any right whatsoever on those who may be seeking appointment in pursuance of the advertisement and since the  State has specifically come up with the case that they do  not require any one to be appointed as Registration Clerks in  pursuance of  the said  advertisement dated March 24, 1991  and they  are not  proposing to  process the  said advertisement any  further, the said advertisement cannot be invoked  by   the  petitioners  to  seek  regularisation  as Registration Clerks.  Referring to  the decision  of  S.H.A. Raza J.  in Civil  Misc. Writ Petition No. 3721/1990 against which the  special leave  petition  was  dismissed  by  this Court, the  High Court  has observed  that the fact that the special leave  petition has  been dismissed against the said judgment  cannot   be  a   precedent  for   permitting   the petitioners in these matters to get a benefit which they are not entitled  to. The High Court has disagreed with the view of the learned Judge in that case and has reversed the same. The learned Judges have also referred to the judgmentment of another learned  single Judge  (Vijay Bahuguna  J.) in Civil Misc. Writ  Petition No.  17634-A/1991 and  has not approved the directions given by the learned Judge in that matter and have observed  that the  said directions  are wholly  out of bounds of  Article 226  of the  Constitution of  India.  The learned Judges  have also  taken note  of the interim orders that were passed by other learned Judges [sitting singly] in various writ  petitions, both  at Allahabad  as well  as  at Lucknow, and have observed that the said interim orders were obtained by  the petitioners on the basis of averments which were  incorrect   and  false.   The  learned   Judges  have, therefore, dismissed  the writ  petitions that were filed by the petitioners.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13  

to in paragraphs 95 and 96 of the Manual, i.e., posts on the permanent and  the temporary  strength of the establishment. The permanent strenght is fixed for each office on the basis of assessment made having regard to the amount of work to be performed in  the office  and is subject to periodic review. Similarly the  temporary establishment  is sanctioned by the District  Registrar   with  the  previous  approval  of  the Inspector  General.   The  permanent   and  temporary  posts contemplated in  paragraphs 94-A,  95, 96  and 97  are posts sanctioned for  appointment on  regular basis.  The posts of Registration  Clerks  on  daily  wage  basis  on  which  the petitioners  were   appointed  do   not  fall   under  these paragraphs of  the Manual. Special sanction was given by the Governor for  appointment on  these  posts  of  Registration Clerks on  daily wage  basis for  the purpose of disposal of the arrears  of documents  in Registration  offices and  the District Registrar had been directed to ensure in every case disposal of  all documents  in arrears  within a  period  of three  months.   The  sanction  was  given  subject  to  the condition that  such appointment  shall in  no  case  exceed three months  during the  course of  a financial  year.  The appointment on  these posts  of Registration Clerks on daily wage basis  was required  to be  made on the basis of a list that was  to be  prepared as per the directions contained in the Government  order sanctioning  the posts.  The said list was not the list prepared under paragraph 97 of the Manual.      In this  context, it may also be stated that since 1978 there exist  the 1978  Rules making  express provisions with regard to  recruitment on the post of Registration Clerks in the Registration  Department. Rule  15  of  the  1978  Rules prescribes the  procedure for  the direct recruitment to the post  of   Registration  Clerk.   Prior  to   the  amendment introduced by  the Amendment  Rules of  1992 the  said  Rule provided that  "subject to  the  provisions  of  rule  5(2), recruitment to  the post  of Registration  Clerk  (including against officiating or temporary vacancies) shall be made in accordance with  the procedure  laid down in the Subordinate Offices Ministerial  Staff (Direct  Recruitment) Rules, 1975 as amended from time to time". Rule 5(2) provided as under : 2Rule 5(2) : Name of the Post   Source of recruitment Registration Clerk      a)   By direct recruitment.           (b)By promotion  to the extent of 10 per      cent of  the vacancies from amongst the Group      ’D’  employees   in   accordance   with   the      provisions   of   the   Subordinate   offices      Ministerial Staff  (Direct Recruitment) Rules      1975 as amended from time to time.      (2)  Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in      these rules,  before  direct  recruitment  is      made to  the post  of Registration Clerk, the      appointment shall  be made  from amongst  the      candidates whose  names are  included in  the      list of  approved candidates  prepared  under      rule 97  of the Registration Manual for Uttar      Pradesh, Part  II  (Seventh  Edition)  as  it      stood on  June, 1974  and in  accordance with      the procedure laid down therein."      On behalf  of the  petitioners it  has been  urged that appointment of  a candidate  whose name  is included  in the list of  approved  candidates  under  paragraph  97  of  the Manual, as  the said paragraph stood on January 19, 1974, is to be  treated as  an appointment  under rule 15 of the 1978 Rules. The  submission of  the learned  counsel is  that the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13  

words "as it stood in January 1974" refer to paragraph 97 of the Manual.  We are  unable to  agree. The said provision in rule 5(2)  was in the nature of a transitory provision which enabled recruitment  to be  made in the initial period after the coming  into force of the 1978 Rules on the basis of the list of the approved candidates that had been prepared under the existing  provisions contained  in paragraph  97 of  the Manual. The  words "as  it  stood  in  January  1974"  must, therefore, be construed as referring to the list of approved candidates that  had been prepared under paragraph 97 of the Manual as  that list stood in January 1974. The construction placed by  the learned  counsel for  the petitioners  on the words "as  it stood  in January  1974" would  mean that even after the  1978 Rules  the appointments will have to be made on the  basis of  list prepared in accordance with paragraph 97 of  the Manual  from time  to time. This would completely nullify the  provisions relating to recruitment contained in rule 15  of the  1978 Rules.  A construction  which leads to such a  result cannot  be adopted. We are, therefore, unable to accept  the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners that the  appointment of  the petitioners  on  the  post  of Registration Clerks on daily wage basis was in the nature of a regular appointment made in accordance with the provisions of the  relevant rules.  In our  opinion, appointment of the petitioners was  made on  the basis of the sanction given by the Governor  for such  posts each  year which  sanction was subject to  the express  condition that  such an appointment shall in  no case exceed three months during the course of a financial year.      The next  contention that  has been  urged  by  learned counsel  for   the  petitioners  is  with  regard  to  their regularisation on  the post  of Registration  Clerks. It has been submitted  that in  letters  dated  July  6,  1985  and September  20,   1985  from   the   Inspector   General   of Registration to the State Government it was pointed out that in June  1985, the  number of  documents which  were pending clearance were  about 11,28,000  and as  per the requirement prescribed in  the Manual about 700 Registration Clerks were required over and above 900 sanctioned posts of Registration Clerks  existing   in  the  Department.  It  has  also  been submitted that  as per  letter dated  December 22, 1993 from the Inspector  General of  Registration in November 1993 the total  number  of  documents  pending  clearance  was  about 9,12,696 and  that, if the certified copies of the documents and the  memos of enquiry were to be taken into account, the said number  would increase to about 15,00,000 and about 920 Registration Clerks  were required  for that purpose. It has been urged  that against the said requirement only 272 posts of Registration  Clerks were  created between  1985 and 1994 and that  at present there are only 1247 sanctioned posts of Registration Clerks  out of  which 147  posts were vacant in December 1993  and by  July 31,  1994 the  number of  vacant posts had  increased to  214 on  account  of  promotion  and retirement.  On  behalf  of  the  respondents  it  has  been submitted that  a requisition for selection for 128 posts of Registration Clerks  was sent  to the  Subordinate  Services Selection Commission  and the  same is  pending and  that in view of  the insertion  of  Sections  32A  and  32B  in  the Registration Act  in the State of U.P., additional hands are not needed  and the  Government was  thinking of withdrawing the requisition.  We do  not propose to go into the question whether there is need for appointment of Registration Clerks against the  existing  vacancies.  We  will  deal  with  the contention urged  by the  learned counsel of the petitioners on the  basis that  there  are  vacancies  on  the  post  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13  

Registration Clerks  and examine whether the petitioners can claim regularisation  on such  posts. In this regard, it may be stated  that in  the State of U.P. provisions with regard to regularisation  are contained  in the U.P. Regularisation of Ad  hoc Appointments (on posts outside the purview of the Public  Service   commission)  Rules,   1979.   (hereinafter referred to as ’the Regularisation Rules’). Rule 4(1) of the Regularisation Rules provides; as follows : "Rule   4.    Regularisation   of    ad   hoc appointments-      (1)  Any person who-      (i)  was directly  appointed on  ad hoc basis      before January  1, 1977  and is continuing in      service as  such on  the date of commencement      of these rules;      (ii) possessed    requisite    qualifications      prescribed for  regular  appointment  at  the      time of such ad hoc appointment; and      (iii)     has comp  leted or, as the case may      be,  after   he  has  completed  three  years      continuous service,      shall be  considered for  regular appointment      in permanent  or temporary  vacancy as may be      available on  the basis  of  his  record  and      suitability before any regular appointment is      made in  such vacancy  is accordance with the      relevant service rules or orders."      By the Amendment Rules notified vide notification dated August 7,  1989 the  Regularisation Rules  were amended  and Rule 10 was inserted which provides that : "Rule 10. Extension of the Rules -      The provisions  of these  Rules shall  apply,      mutatis mulandis, also to any person directly      appointed  on  ad  hoc  basis  on  or  before      October 1,  1986 and continuing in service as      such, on  the date  of  commencement  of  the      Uttar   Pradesh   Regularisation   of   Adhoc      Appointments (On posts outside the purview of      the  Public   Service   Commission)   (Second      Amendment) Rules, 1989."      The petitioners  can claim  regularisation only if they satisfy the requirements of the said provisions. They should have been  directly appointed  on adhoc basis before October 1,  1986,   they  should   have  possessed   the   requisite qualifications prescribed  for regular  appointment  at  the time  of   such  adhoc  appointment  and  they  should  have completed three  years continuous service. It has been urged on behalf  of the  petitioners that  some of the petitioners had been  working as Registration Clerks on daily wage basis since much before October 1, 1986 and they would be entitled to be considered for regularisation under the Regularisation Rules.  These   provisions  are   applicable  only   to   an appointment made  on adhoc  basis. Though the High Court has held that  the appointment  of the petitioners on daily wage basis was  not an  adhoc appointment, we are not inclined to take that  view and  we will  proceed on  the basis that the appointment of  the petitioners was such an appointment. The question which  survives is  whether any  of the petitioners who had  been appointed  as Registration Clerk on daily wage basis prior  to October  1, 1986  can be  regarded as having completed three years continuous service. Since the order of the  Governor   sanctioning  appointment  on  the  posts  of Registration Clerks on daily wage basis imposes a limitation that such  appointment shall  in no case exceed three months during the course of a financial year, there are long breaks

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13  

between the  various periods  during which  the  petitioners were employed as Registration Clerks on daily wage basis. In Bhagwati  Prasad   v.  Delhi   State   Mineral   Development Corporation, 1990 (1) SCC 361, this Court has laid down that for the  purpose of counting three years’ continuous service for  the  purpose  of  regularisation  artificial  break  in service for  short period/periods  created by  the  employer could be  ignored but  "if there is a gap of more than three months between  the period of termination and re-appointment that period  may be excluded in the computation of the three years period". (at p. 364). In view of the said decision for computing three  year period  of continuous  service for the purpose of  Rule 4(1)(iii)  of the Regularisation Rules, the period of  break in  service which  was  longer  than  three months has  to be  excluded and only the period during which the petitioners  actually worked can be counted. In case any of the  petitioners was  employed as a Registration Clerk on daily wage  basis  prior  to  October  1,  1986  and,  after excluding periods of breaks in service which are longer than three months, he has put in three years service, he would be entitled to  seek regularisation  under  Rule  4(1)  of  the Regularisation Rules  provided he fulfils the requirement of clause (ii)  of the  said rule.  He can move the appropriate authority for  such regularisation  and the  said  authority will pass appropriate orders after verifying the correctness of the  claim of  such a  petitioner. The petitioners who do not  fulfil  the  said  condition  of  three  years  service contained in  Rule 4(1)(ii)  cannot claim  regularisation on the basis of the Regularisation Rules.      It has  been urged  on behalf  of the  petitioners that many of  them have rendered continuous service for more than 240 days  in a  year  and  that  they  are  entitled  to  be regularised. We  find no  merit in this contention. In Delhi Development   Horticulture   Employees’   Union   v.   Delhi Administration, Delhi  & Ors.,  1992 (4)  SCC 99, this Court has not  accepted the  principle that  an employee  can seek regularisation only  on the  ground that  he has put in work for 240  or more days. Similarly, in the State of Haryana v. Piara Singh  & Ors.  (supra) this Court, while setting aside the  direction   of  the   High   Court   that   all   those adhoc/temporary employees  who had continued for more than a year should be regularised, has observed :      "None of  the decisions  relied upon  by  the      High   Court    justify    such    wholesale,      unconditional orders. Moreover, from the mere      continuation of  an adhoc  employee  for  one      year, it  cannot be  presumed that  there  is      need for  a regular  post. Such a presumption      may be  justified only  when such continuance      extends to  several years. Further, there can      be  no  ’rule  of  thumb’  in  such  matters.      Condiytions and  circumstances of one unit may      not be the same as of the other. Just because      in  one   case,  a  direction  was  given  to      regularise employees  who  have  put  in  one      year’s service as far as possible and subject      to fulfilling  the qualifications,  it cannot      be held  that in  each and  every case such a      direction  must   followirrespective  of  and      without  taking   into  account   the   other      relevant circumstances  and  considerations."      [p. 142] In  that   case,  this  Court  has,  however, observed :           "If a  casual labourer has continued for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13  

    a say  two or three years - a presumption may      arise that  there is  a regular  need for his      services and  in such  a situation it becomes      obligatory for  the  authority  concerned  to      examine    the     feasibility     of     his      regularisation." [p. 153]      Regularisation in  service in  the  State  of  U.P.  is governed by  the Regularisation  Rules  which  prescribes  a period of three years continuous service. We cannot say that the  said   period  of  three  years  prescribed  under  the Regularisation   Rules    is    unreasonable.    In    these circumstances, it  must be  held that unless the petitioners fulfil the requirement of the Re Regularisation Rules, they cannot be regularised.      It has  been submitted  by the  learned counsel for the petitioners that  even though  under the Governor’s sanction appointment on the post of Registration Clerks on daily wage basis could  be made  for a  maximum period  of three months during the  course of  a  financial  year,  a  practice  was prevailing in  the  Registration  Department  to  avail  the services of  Registration Clerks  appointed  on  daily  wage basis by treating them as Apprentices but they were not paid any emoluments for the period they worked as Apprentices. It is stated  that this  was done by invoking the provisions of paragraph 101 of the Manual which provided as under :- "101 : Employment of unpaid Apprentice      The  employment   of  unpaid   Apprentice  in      registration offices  is strictly prohibited,      except  in   special  cases,   and  with  the      previous sanction, in writing of the District      Registrar of  the District  or the  Inspector      General of  Registration, which  sanction can      be at  any time  withdrawn. It  should at the      same time,  be clearly understood that as the      employment of  unpaid Apprentice  can only be      regarded  as   a  convenience   of  the  Sub-      Registrar himself,  such services will not be      recognised   as    giving   any    claim   of      appointment."      On behalf of the respondents it has been submitted that the said  provision contained in paragraph 101 of the Manual has been superseded and instructions have been issued by the Inspector General  of Registration  from time to time not to engage any  person under paragraph 101. Shri D.V. Sehgal has very fairly  stated that  if any  petitioner was required to work without  payment as  an Apprentice under paragraph 101, he will  be paid emoluments on daily wage basis for the said period. In  view of this statement if any of the petitioners or other  similarly placed  persons was  required to perform the duties  of Registration  Clerk as  an  Apprentice  under paragraph 101  of the  Manual he can submit a representation setting out  the particulars  about such  employment and the concerned authority,  after  verifying  the  correctness  of claim,  would  pass  the  necessary  order  for  payment  of emoluments on daily wage basis for the period he is found to have so  worked on  the post of Registration Clerk. The said period during which he is found to have worked as Apprentice under paragraph 101 of the Manual shall be also counted as a part of  his service  as Registration  Clerk on  daily  wage basis for the purpose of computing the period of three years continuous service for the purpose of regularisation.      It has  been next  urged on  behalf of  the petitioners that even  if the  petitioners  are  not  entitled  to  seed regularisation, they  should  be  given  preference  in  the matter of  appointment on  the post  of  Registration  Clerk

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13  

whenever regular  appointment  is  made  on  that  post  and reliance has  been placed  on the  decision of this Court in Prabodh Verma & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 1985 (1) SCR  216. In that case nearly 90 per cent of teachers in recognised  institutions  who  were  members  of  the  Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik  Shikshak  Sangh  went  on  an  indefinite strike. The said strike was declared as illegal by the State Government and  the services  of the  striking teachers were terminated. Fresh  appointments on temporary basis were made on the  posts of  teachers whose  services were  terminated. Thereafter a  settlement took  place  between  the  striking teachers and  the State  Government and  the services of the newly appointed  teachers were  terminated. Thereafter,  the Governor of  Uttar Pradesh  promulgated an  ordinance  which provided for  the absorption  of  certain  teachers  in  the institutions recognised  under  the  Intermediate  Education Act, 1921  and for  that purpose  a provision  was made  for maintaining a register of "reserve pool teachers" consisting of persons  who were appointed as teachers during the period of the  strike and  it was  further provided  that where any substantive  vacancy   in  the  post  of  a  teacher  in  an institution recognised  by the  Board  of  High  school  and Intermediate  Education   was  to   be  filled   by   direct recruitment,  such  post  should  at  the  instance  of  the Inspector be  offered by the management to the teacher whose name was  entered in  the said register. The validity of the said ordinance  was challenged  before  the  Allahabad  High Court by  some of the applicants who were not in the reserve pool. The said ordinance was declared as invalid by the High Court on  the ground  that it  was violative of the right to equality guaranteed  under Article  14 of  the Constitution. Reversing the said view of the High Court, this Court upheld the said  ordinance and  held that there was an intellingile differential which  distinguishes the  teachers put  in  the reserve pool  from other applicants for posts of teachers in recognised  institutions   inasmuch  as   the  reserve  pool teachers were  those who had come forward at a time when the teachers employed  or a  large majority of such teachers, in the recognised  institutions,  had  gone  on  an  indefinite strike and  had continued  the strike even after it had been declared illegal and had the strike continued almost all the recognised institutions in the State would have had to close down putting  the students  to great  hardship and suffering and causing  a break  in their  education and that it was in these difficult  and trying  times  that  the  reserve  pool teachers came forward to man the recognised institutions. It has also been observed that the reserve pool teachers joined the recognised  institutions during the period of the strike in circumstances  in which  they exposed themselves to great hostility from  the striking  teachers and  that they did so running a  certain amount  of risk  for there  was always  a possibility of  a strike turning violent and that almost all those who  applied for  these posts  and  were  not  in  the reserve pool  and were  seeking to challenge the validity of the ordinance  must have  qualified to  be appointed  to the post of  teachers in  the recognised institutions during the pendency of  strike and  none of  these applicants, however, came forward  to join  a recognised  institution during that period as the reserve pool teachers did and, therefore, they stood in  a different  class from the reserve pool teachers. We find  it difficult  to appreciate how the petitioners can claim preference in the matter of regular appointment on the post of Registration Clerk on the basis of this decision. It cannot be  said that the petitioners had to undergo any risk when they joined as Registration Clerks on daily wage basis.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13  

They joined  the posts  of their own free will knowing fully well that the said appointment was for a very short duration and would  not exceed  three months  during the  course of a financial year.  We are,  therefore, unable to hold that the petitioners who  had worked  as Registration Clerks on daily wage basis  form a  separate class and are entitled to claim preferential treatment  in the  matter of appointment on the post of  Registration Clerks as and when recruitment is made for the said post.      We are,  however, of  the view that in the event of the recruitment being made on the post of Registration Clerks on regular basis,  the petitioners  or other  similarly  placed persons should  be given one opportunity of being considered for such  appointment and  they be  given relaxation  in age requirement provided  for such  appointment under the rules. During the  process of  selection weightage may be given for their experience  to the Registration Clerks who have worked on daily  wage basis  and suitable  guidelines may be framed for that  purpose  by  the  Subordinate  Services  Selection Commission.      For the  reasons aforementioned,  the impugned judgment of the High Court is upheld with the following directions :- (1)  The petitioners  or other  similarly placed persons who were employed  as Registration  Clerks on  daily wage  basis prior  to   October  1,   1986  shall   be  considered   for regularisation  under  the  provisions  of  rule  4  of  the Regularisation Rules  provided they  fulfil the reguirements of  rule  4(1)(ii)  and  they  have  completed  three  years continuous service.  The said  period of three years service shall be  computed by  taking into account the actual period during which  the employee  had worked as Registration Clerk on daily  wage  basis.  The  period  during  which  such  an employee has  performed the  duties  of  Registration  Clerk under paragraph  101 of  the Manual shall be counted as part of service for the purpose of such regularisation. (2)  In the  event of  appointment on  regualr basis  on the post  of  Registration  Clerks,  the  petitioners  or  other similarly placed  persons who  had  worked  as  Registration Clerks on  daily wage  basis may be given one opportunity of being considered  for such  appointment and  they  be  given relaxation in  the matter  of age requirement prescribed for such appointment under the Rules. (3)  The Subordinate  Services  Selection  Commission  while making selection  for regular  appointment to  the posts  of Registration  Clerks   shall  give   weightage   for   their experience to  the Registration  Clerks who  have worked  on daily wage  basis and  shall frame  suitable guidelines  for that purpose. (4)  If any  of the  petitioners or  other similarly  placed person was  required to  perform the  duties of Registration Clerk as an Apprentice under paragraph 101 of the Manual, he may submit  a representation  to the  appropriate  authority setting out  the full  particulars of such employment within three months  and the  concerned authority,  after verifying the correctness  of the said claim, shall pass the necessary order for  payment of emoluments on daily wage basis for the period he  is found  to  have  so  worked  on  the  post  of Registration Clerk.  The said payment shall be made within a period of  three months  from the  date of submission of the representation.      The   Special   Leave   Petitions   are   disposed   of accordingly.      No costs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 13