RAJ PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Dinesh Pathak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the contesting Respondents

(2.) The petitioner, by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order dated 4/02/2001, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition, whereby pursuance to the order and direction issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, the Respondents have refused to regularise the services of the petitioner on the ground that since the petitioner was not found working on the cut of date, is not entitled for regularisation.

(3.) Petitioner in pa1ragraphs, 20 and 21 of the writ petition has categorically stated that the name of the petitioner was already shown in letter No. 147 dated 31/10/1999, which was received in the office of the Respondent No. 4/11/1999, but the same has been ignored by the Respondent No. 4. The Prabhari Adhikari, Ghatampur has again wrote letter No. 165 dated 2/11/1999 with some other details in respect to the regularisation of the petitioner to the Respondent No. 4 which has been received in his office on 3/11/1999, copies whereof have been annexed as Annexures- 9 and 10 to the writ petition. The reply to these paragraphs has been given in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the counter-affidavit, wherein the existence of the documents Annexures 8, 9 and 10 to the writ petition, have not been denied.