GANESHJI SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. Petitioners' case was considered in the light of the judgment in the case of I. G. Registration v. Awadesh Kumar and others, JT 1996 (5) SC 365. Their case was considered by an Order dated 14-8-1996 which is Annexure-4 and 5 to the writ petition. It appears from the said order that the petitioners were unable to show anything for which period they had worked. They have also not been able to produce anything to show that they had worked continuously for three years. Therefore, they do not fulfil the conditions laid down in the order dated 27-9-1995. It was also recorded that the petitioners were unable to prove their total period of working. Therefore, their case was rejected.

(2.) RELYING on paragraph 24 of the writ petition and Annexures 6 and 7 to the writ petition, Shri P. S. Baghel, learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the are proof for the period during which there petitioners had worked. He had made a positive statement in paragraph 24 of the writ petition that the petitioners had filed their experience certificates before respondent No. 2 which had not been con sidered. On being asked the original cer tificates, Shri Baghel, learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the originals were produced before the concerned respondent and the Annexures to the writ petition are photo copies of these originals which were produced before the concerned respondent which have not been considered. He also contends that the said order has been passed without any application of mind inasmuch as in every such cases orders are being passed which are identical words bywords.

(3.) WITH the aforesaid observation this writ petition is finally disposed of.