- (1.) We have heard Shri J.K. Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for State of UP-the Appellants. Shri Nikhil Kumar appears for the Respondent.
(2.) In these Special Appeals arising out of judgment of learned Single Judge dated 26.11.1998 after the matter was remanded by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9135 of 1995 decided on 27.9.1995, learned Single Judge has found that there was substantial compliance of Rule 22 of the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985, and the appointments of the Petitioners namely, Promod Kumar Yadav in Writ Petition No. 17836 of 1991; Gyanendra Kumar Shukla in Writ Petition No. 17837 of 1991, and Prashant Kumar in Writ Petition No. 17884 of 1991, were made after complying with the Rules. The writ petitions were allowed and the impugned orders terminating their services dated 15.6.1991, were set aside. Learned Single Judge also held that prior to the selections the vacancies were determined and that the appointing authority had notified them to the Employment Exchange. The failure to advertise the vacancies in the newspapers, would, therefore, not by itself invalidate the appointments.
(3.) Brief facts, giving rise to the writ petition, are stated in the judgment of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9135 of 1995 decided on 27.9.1995, as follows: The Appellant was initially appointed as Registration Clerk on daily wage basis by the District Registrar, District Jhansi, by order dated September 27, 1990. While the Appellant was working as Registration Clerk, the District Registrar, District Jhansi, issued a notice/ advertisement for filling up six posts of Registration Clerks on regular basis. Out of six posts five posts were to be filled up from and amongst the general candidates and the sixth post was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate. The District Registrar, District Jhansi constituted a Selection Committee for the said appointment. The Appellant appeared before the said Selection Committee on February 24, 1991 and was selected. He was appointed on the post of Registration Clerk on the basis of said selection and he joined as Registration Clerk on February 25, 1991, but by order dated June 15, 1991 his services were terminated. The Appellant filed a writ petition (Writ Petition No. 17883/91) in the Allahabad High Court which was heard along with special appeals and writ petitions of other Registration Clerks employed on daily wage basis and the same was dismissed by common judgment and order dated February 8,1995. It has been urged on behalf of the Appellant that his case differs from other cases dealt with by the High Court inasmuch as he had been selected for regular appointment by a duly constituted Selection Committee in accordance with the rules and the High Court has not considered this aspect of the matter. In the counter affidavit thus has been filed on behalf of the Respondents before this Court, it has not been disputed that the Selection Committee was duly constituted by the District Registrar, District Jhansi on February 24, 1991 but it was asserted that while doing so the District Registrar, District Jhansi, did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Rule 22 of the Subordinate Officers Ministerial Staff (District Recruitment) Rules, 1975 which had been replaced by the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985 as amended upto date and thus there was defect in the procedure of the said selection and the selection was void. This questions has not been gone into by the High Court while dismissing the writ petition of the Appellant. It is a question which should have been considered by the High Court before dismissing the writ petition of the Appellant.;