SANDEEP KUMAR SINGH Vs. DISTRICT REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was appointed on Ad-hoc basis as Registration Clerk in the office of Sub-Registrar, Mirzapur on 6th December, 1989 has challenged the order impugned in the present writ petition dated 18th March, 1991 whereby the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) informed the petitioner that the appointment of all the Ad-hoc Registration Clerks were directed to be terminated by Inspector General (Registration), U.P., Allahabad vide its order dated 20th February, 1991. It was, therefore, directed that the petitioner's services' shall be terminated with immediate effect. It is this order which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court. At the time when the writ petition was presented, this Court was pleased to pass the following order dated 20th March, 1991 :

(2.) The writ petition came up for hearing before me on 6th March, 2002 under the heading 'cases likely to have become infructuous by efflux of time. The writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous on 6th March, 2002 and the interim order dated 20th March, 1991 was vacated. Thereafter an application being Civil Misc. Recall Application No. 79058 of 2002 for recall of the aforesaid order dated 6th March, 2002 was filed stating therein that since the matter regarding regularisation of the petitioner is pending before the respondents, the writ petition has not become infructuous. This statement has been made for the first time in the affidavit. However, considering the interest of justice the order dated 6th March, 2002 was recalled and the writ petition was restored to its original number. Another application being Civil Misc. Application No. 132238 of 2002 was filed with the prayer that the supplementary affidavit filed along with the application be accepted on record, whereby the petitioner brought on record the decision of the Apex Court reported in JT 1995(7) SC 545 : (1996) 1 UPLBEC 23 (SC), Khagesh Kumar and Ors. v. Inspector General of Registration and Ors., in which the Apex Court in the similar circumstances had issued the direction which are contained in Para 24 of the judgment which is as under:

(3.) The another decision which has been brought on record is reported in 1996 Supreme Court Cases (L & S) 1222 : (1996) 3 UPLBEC 1744 (SC), Inspector General of Registration, U.P. and Anr. v. Avdesh Kumar and Ors., wherein considering the directions issued by the Apex Court in Khagesh Kumar's case (supra), a direction has been issued to consider even such candidates who have become over age and were working on daily wage. The provisions of Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad-hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) (Third Amendment) Rules, 2001 were promulgated which amends the Rule 4 of the original Rule 4 of Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad-hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 which is reproduced below: