TARUN AGARWALA, J. - (1.) BY an order dated 23 -11 -1990, the petitioner was appointed as a clerk -cum -typist on a daily wage basis by the respondent No. 2. The services of the petitioner on daily wages basis was extended from time to time and by an order dated 1 -8 -1991, the services of the petitioner was extended till further orders. It transpires that the petitioner was threatened that his service would be dispensed with and, therefore, he filed a writ petition No. 30672 of 1991 praying that the petitioner be treated as a quasi employee in the service of the respondents. An interim order dated 4 -2 -1992 was passed by this Court directing that the employment of the petitioner would continue on daily wages till a regular selection was made by the respondents. On the basis of this interim order, the petitioner continued in service till 7 -6 -2001.
(2.) ON 4 -7 -1998 the State Government promulgated U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wage Appointments on Group C Post (Outside the Purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998(hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1998) for regularisation of daily rated workers, who were outside the purview of the commission. These Rules indicated that those daily rated workers, who were working on 29 -6 -1991 and worked continuously till 9 -7 -1998, i.e., the date of issuance of the Rules their cases would be considered for regularisation. In paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 of the writ petition, the petitioner has categorically stated that he had been working prior to 29 -6 -1991 and worked continuously till the issuance of the Government Order dated 9 -7 -1998 and even thereafter and therefore, he was entitled to be regularised as a regular typist -cum -typist in the service of the respondents. On the basis of the Rules of 1998 the petitioner made a representation for regularisation of his services. Since his representation was not being considered by the respondents, the petitioner filed a writ petition No. 1094 of 1999, in which a direction was issued by this Court on 28 -1 -99 directing the authority concerned to decide the representation of the petitioner. Based on the direction of the Court, the authority concerned rejected the representation of the petitioner by an order dated 18 -6 -1999, against which, the petitioner again approached this Hon'ble Court in writ petition No. 28552 of 1999. This writ petition was again disposed of by this Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 2 -1 -2001 directing the authority to decide the representation of the petitioner again in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in Khagesh Kumar and others v. Inspector General of Registration and others, reported in 1996(1) LBESR 113 (SC) : 1996(1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 23. Prior to the aforesaid direction, this Court also decided writ petition No. 30672 of 1991 by judgment dated 21 -11 -2000, directing the authority concerned to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of service on the basis of the Rules of 1998.
(3.) BASED on the aforesaid two directions of this Court, the petitioner again filed a fresh representation before the authority concerned, which was rejected again by the impugned order dated 7 -6 -2001 wherein not only the petitioner's representation for regularisation of his service has been rejected, his services on ad hoc basis was also dispensed with.;