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

PETITIONER: SANJAY GUPTA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/09/1995

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

CITATION:  JT 1995 (7)   122        1995 SCALE  (5)610

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                        J U D G M E N T S.C. AGRAWAL, J.:      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.

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

    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.