SARASWATI PRASADS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners allege to have been appointed as Assistant Vasti Baqi Navis and contend that they have not been regularised. By means of a representation contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition, the petitioners claim that they should be confirmed in the post of clerk in the Collectorate against the existing vacancies in the post of clerk. By an order dated 3rd January, 1994, contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition, the prayer was rejected on the ground that it was without any substance. Mr. Satish Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have been given appointment in some other posts. Therefore, the writ petition as regards petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 has become infructuous. Accordingly, on the basis of his such statement, which is supported by Annexure R.A.-8 to the writ petition, this writ petition as against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 is dismissed as infructuous.

(2.) Mr. Dwivedi further contends that petitioner Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are entitled to be regularised and confirmed in the post of clerk by reason of the fact that it is in the same category as described in U. P. District Offices (Collectorates) Ministerial Service Rules, 1980, as would appear from Part 111, Rule 5. He also relies on the decisions in the case of Mahak Singh v. Collector, Muzaffarnagar, Writ Petition No. 34470 of 1998 disposed of on 2nd February, 1998 but this Court by Hon'ble S. R. Singh J., in Virendra Singh v. Collector, Kanpur Dehat, 1994 (1) UPLBEC 625, decided by a learned single Judge of this Court in order to contend that Assistant Vasil Baqi Navis can be confirmed and regularised in the post of clerk. In the alternative, Mr. Dwivedi contends that the petitioners' case may be considered in accordance with the schemes for regularisatlon in the post of Assistant Vasil Baqi Navis, which provides for recruitment through the temporary Assistant Vasll Baqi Navis to the extent of 50% quota of the vacancies in the said post.

(3.) Mr. K. R. Singh, learned standing counsel on the other hand contends that the post of clerk is altogether different and is a post promotional from that of Assistant Vasil Baqi Navis, which is a feeder post. Therefore, there cannot be any question for confirmation or regularisatlon in the post of clerk of the persons engaged as Assistant Vasll Baqi Navis on temporary basis. According to him, therefore, this writ petition should fail.