UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.versusINSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION

                   SATYENDRA NATH BA.IPA!                                         A
                             v.
             INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION
                   UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.

                          SEPTEMBER 27, 1995
                                                                                  B
           [S.C. AGRAWAL AND B.P. JEEV AN REDDY, .JJ.]

        Se1vice Law :

      Registration Cle1k-Appoinlmenl on daily wages--Temtination--Wiit            C
Petition-A/legation that junio1:\· regulalised igno1i11g hini-Writ connected
with petitions of otlter Cle1k;~Direclion by High Cowt lo consider regulaiisa-
tion of juni01--Held petitioner's case should also have been considered
sbnilarly-Matter reniitted to High Cotut for reconsideration.

      The appellant worked as Registration Clerk on daily wages from
                                                                                  D
February 14, 1985 to March 31, 1990. Thereafter bis services were not
availed of. His grievance was that persons below him in the approved list
had been regularised ignoring him. His writ petition, heard along with
special appeals and writ petitions of other Registration Clerks was dis-
missed. In appeal to this Court it was contended for the appellant that in        E
another judgment the High Court directed consideration of a junior daily
wage Clerk for regularisation and that in the same manner his case should
also have been considered.

        Allowing the appeal, this Court
                                                                                  F
      HELD: The writ petition of'tbe appellant should have been considered
by the High Court in the light of the circumstances as mentioned by the
appellant. The order of the High Court in so far as it relates to dismissal of
writ petition tiled by the appellant is set aside and the said writ petition is
remitted to the High Court for consideration on merits. [107-A-B]                 G

      Rajiv Kumar Shukla v. Distlict Registrar Hardoi & On·., W.P. No.6167
of 1990 decided on 2.7.1990, referred to.

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9133 of
1995.                                                                             1-1
                                     105
    106                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A        From the Judgment and Order dated 8.2.95. of the Allahabad High
    Court in W.P. No. 849/95 (8030/90).

          Harinder Mohan Singh for the Appellants.

          R.S. Misra for the Rspondcnts.
B
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          S.C. AGRAWAL, J. Leave granted.

          The appellant was appointed as Registration Clerk on daily wage
c basis by order dated February 14, 1985. He had worked as Registration
    Clerk on daily wage basis during various periods form February 14, 1985
    to March 31, 1990. His services were not availed thereafter. The appellant
    filed a writ petition (W.P. No. 849/95 [8030/90]) in the Allahabad High
    Court wherein he claimed that he has been shown at serial No. 1 in the
D   approved list of candidates issued by the District Registrar, District Har-
    doi, 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 nan1cs were sho\vn below
E   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
F   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 with 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
G   in Rajiv Kumar Shukla 1'. Di.Wict Registra1; Hardoi & 01:1. (Writ Petition
    No. 6167 of 1990) dated July 2, 1990 wherein direction has been given that
    the said Rajiv 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
H    and in pursuance of the said order he has been appointed on regular basis.
    S.N. BAJPAI v. INSPECTOR GEN. OF REGN. [S.C. AGRAWAL, J.]         107

      The High Court while dismissing the writ petition of the appellant     A
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 cir-
cumstances refe:rred to above.

      The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the judgment and order of the       B
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.

T.N.A.                                                   Appeal Allowed.