Full Judgment Text
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.