- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE petitioner worked in the Excise Department on daily wages for a period of one year, 10 months and 23 days w. e. f. 6-4-1989 to 30-6-1991. Vacancies for the post of 30 Routine Grade Clerks were advertised on 20-11-1992 in the newspaper 'dainik Jagran'. It is alleged by the petitioner that he was assured by the respondents that they will absorb/appoint him in the forthcoming vacancies of Routine Grade Clerk in the Department, but when he approached the respondents to consider him for absorption in view of the vacancies published in the Advertisement, dated 20-11-1992 as per their assurance he was denied absorption. According to the petitioner the denial to absorb him in service is arbitrary being against the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government or Public Corporations in Government Service Rules, 1991. Aggrieved the petitioner and one Prem Chandra Patel filed a joint writ petition seeking relief of absorption/appointment on the ground of being retrenched employees of the Excise Department. This Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992 filed by them was disposed of by order, dated 27-11-1992 with a direction to the respondents to consider the grievances of the petitioners contained in their representation with regard to their absorption/appointment. The petitioner as well as Prem Chandra Patel applied for absorption/appointment against the advertisement, dated 20-11-1992 but were not issued admit cards, as such this writ petition was filed by the petitioner, claiming himself to be a retrenched employee and seeking the following reliefs: " (a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner in examination which is going to be held on 7th February, 1993; (b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to appoint the petitioner on priority basis according to Section 6-Q of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, with fair intention; (c) issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper; (d) to award the cost of petition to the petitioner. "
(3.) BY an interim order, dated 5-2-1993 passed in this writ petition, the respondents were directed to permit the petitioner to appear in the examination but his result was not to be declared till further orders of the Court. It is averred that during the pendency of the writ petition, the representation of the petitioner was also rejected by order, dated 25-2-1993 which was challenged by him by means of an amendment application in the writ petition. The reliefs sought by the petitioner in the amendment application are as under: "it is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to consider the amendment of the petitioner in terms of the order of this Hon'ble Court and be allowed for the sake of justice and the amendment be treated as a part of the petition. ";