SANJAY GUPTAS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners came to this Court challenging the orders dated 27.5.1991 and 25.6.1991, terminating their services at Annexures-6 and 7 to the writ petition as also for quashing the advertisement dated 27.3.1991 at Annexure-5 to the writ petition and claimed regularisation of their services.

(2.) In the writ petition case made out is that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 were appointed on 4.10.1990 on daily wage basis, petitioner Nos. 8 to 10 were appointed on 20.2.1991 and the petitioner No. 11 was appointed in place of one Sri Surendra Kumar Gaur, who did not join the service. After the names of the petitioners were approved by the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 24.2.1991, the respondent No. 3 appointed the petitioners again on 18.4.1991 for three months. It has been stated that the respondent No. 2, published advertisement in the daily newspaper 'Amrit Prabhat' dated 27.3.1991, whereunder applications were invited for appointment on the posts of registration clerks. The respondent No. 3 terminated the services of the petitioners by a circular dated 25.6.1991. Challenging such termination and claiming regularisation petitioners filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Counter-affidavit had been filed by the respondents and the petitioners had filed rejoinder-affidavit. The writ petition was finally disposed of by the order dated 8.2.1995, in terms of the Judgment and order of the same date passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition Wo. 30582 of 1991, Hasnain Ahmad v. State of U. P. The matter went to Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9136 of 1995, which was allowed by the Judgment dated 27.9.1995, setting aside the judgment and order of the High Court dated 8.2.1995 and remitting the writ petition to the High Court for consideration on merits as the petitioners contended that this case is different from the bunch of other cases as in this case the petitioners "had been duly selected by the Selection Committee constituted under the rules." In the said judgment of the Apex Court, the objection taken on behalf of the respondents before the Apex Court was also considered that the appointment of the appellants had been made without complying with the provisions of Rule 22, of the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment), Rules, 1985.