SUNIL AMBWANI, J. - (1.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this writ petition are stated as below: The Chairman of Nagar Palika Parishad, Fatehpur published an advertisement in daily newspaper 'Dwaba Varta' on 2 -7 -2000 inviting applications for ten posts of Junior Clerks and one post of Draftsman for interviews to be held on 16 -7 -2000. The petitioner applied and appeared before Selection Committee consisting of the Chairman, the Executive Officer, Water Works Junior Engineer and Sanitary Inspector of Nagar Palika Parishad, Fatehpur. The petitioner were selected and issued appointment letter dated 18 -7 -2000 and joined in the office of Parishad on 19 -7 -2000. The daily wage workers, the staff of Octroi Department and other aggrieved persons lodged complaint in the office of District Magistrate, Fatehpur about the authority, manner and method of appointment by the then Chairperson in connivance with the Executive Officer. The District Magistrate instituted an inquiry on which Additional District Magistrate, Fatehpur directed the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad to make available the entire record relating to such appointment, and not to take any work from the newly appointed persons, and to pay any salary to them. The petitioners filed writ petition Nos. 43541 of 2000, 44734 of 2000 and 44796 of 2000 in which interim orders were issued directing the Executive Officer to pay salary to petitioners, if they are working. The District Magistrate sent a report to the State Government, on which the State Government, by its order dated 20 -1 -2001, decided and directed to cancel the appointment made in July, 2000. The order was passed in exercise of powers under Section 34 (1 -B) of the Municipalities Act, 1916. The State Government also directed the financial loss to be ascertained and to take proceedings for the realization of such loss.
(2.) PETITIONER Nos. 1 and 2 filed a writ petition No. 43601 of 2001 and rest of petitioners filed writ petition No. 5156 of 2001 challenging the orders passed by the State Government. This Court vide its order dated 13 -2 -2001 found that the State Government has not passed a reasoned order and had not given any opportunity to the petitioners. The Court directed that in case petitioners make appropriate representation to the authority who passed initial order cancelling the appointment, the said representation shall be decided by reasoned order. The State Government considered the representations filed by the petitioners afresh, and that by a detailed order dated 28 -11 -2001, these representations were rejected. The State Government found that the appointments were made against the Government Order dated 7 -5 -1992 by which the State Government had directed all the Local Bodies to filled up the vacant posts by regularisation of those daily wagers who were working on or before 11 -10 -1989 and had completed more than three years of service with 240 days in each year. In case daily wagers are not available in view of the financial difficulties, the posts were to be kept vacant. In case it was necessary to appoint persons, the prior approval of the State Government was required. It was further directed that such requirements shall be made under the supervision of District Magistrate by inviting applications from Employment Exchange and following the procedures and rules of reservation. The State Government found that the special appointments made in July, 2000 were irregular. The State Government was not informed nor any approval was taken from the State Government. The surplus staff of octroi department was not adjusted and that the District Magistrate was not informed or associated with the recruitment. The petitioners filed a writ petition No. 42218 of 2001, challenging the order dated 28 -11 -2001 passed by the State Government, on the ground that the necessary documents and reports sent by the District Magistrate, Additional District Magistrate and Executive Officer, Chairman of Nagar Palika Parishad as well as the complaint was not supplied to them. By a judgment and order dated 19 -12 -2001 this Court found that the orders have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The writ petition was allowed and it was made open to the State Government to pass fresh orders after complying with the principles of natural justice. A contempt petition No. 987 of 2002 was filed alleging that the judgment of this Court dated 19 -12 -2001 has not been complied within which the respondents were directed to appear in person. The order directing the respondents to appear in person was challenged in Special Appeal No. 1181 of 2002. The Division Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 27 -9 -2002 on a statement the fresh orders have been passed by the State Government on 24 -10 -2002, and that the salary shall be paid to the respondents for the month of November, 2001.
(3.) BY an order dated 24 -10 -2002, the State Government after supplying all the documents to the petitioners rejected, their representations afresh. The State Government again relied upon the Government Order dated 26 -6 -1992, by which all Local Bodies were directed to ensure regularisation by State Government and were restrained to fill up vacancies unless it was necessary, after prior approval of the State Government and in such cases they were required to make recruitment under the supervision of the District Magistrate by following rules of appointment and reservation. The State Government found that the then Chairman had sought approval of the State Government on 18 -12 -1999 and 3 -5 -2000 to which the State Government did not gave any reply. It was found that the then Chairman was aware that the State Government had placed a ban on fresh appointment. In para 5 of its order, the State Government also found that there were only 21 sanctioned posts of Junior Clerks on which 17 persons were working and that four vacancies were required to be offered to the surplus staff of Octroi Department. The State Government also observed that the District Magistrate by his letter dated 26 -10 -1997 had warned the Executive Officers for taking any steps for recruitment and that in the present recruitment the rules of reservation were not followed. The representations dated 9/11 -4 -2000, 4 -5 -2000 and 17 -2 -2001 were consequently rejected. Aggrieved the petitioners have filed this writ petition.;