- (1.) Following prayers have been made in the writ petition:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to treat petitioner regular since 21.12.1987 i.e. initial date of petitioner's appointment. (ii) Issue further writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to fix petitioner's seniority, considering petitioner's regular appointment on the post since 21.12.1987."
(2.) Facts relevant for adjudication of the dispute involved are that petitioner was appointed on the post of 'Moharrir Mal' in the court of Upper Tehsildar, Etawah, on ad hoc basis upto 29.2.1988, vide order dated 21st December, 1987. The services, as per the appointment order, was temporary and could be terminated prior to 29th February, 1988 also. The initial ad hoc appointment was extended from time to time. An order, thereafter, was passed on 30.10.1991, observing that petitioner will have to appear in selection proceedings to be undertaken for recruitment to the post, which was to be held shortly, and it was clarified that only thereafter petitioner could be appointed, otherwise his services would not be extended. According to petitioner, he presented himself on 31.10.1991 for selection, but he was not considered, and 18 other candidates were declared successful, excluding the petitioner selected. According to the petitioner, he was allowed to continue even thereafter till 4.12.1991, but was not allowed to sign the attendance register after 5.12.1991.
(3.) Petitioner, consequently, felt aggrieved by the action of respondents in not appointing him, while selecting other persons, and filed a Writ Petition No.37288 of 1991 (Vinod Kumar Pandey Vs. District Magistrate, Etawah), in which an interim order was granted by this Court on 19.12.1991, which is reproduced:- "Issue notice. Untill further orders of this Court, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to work on the post till the duly selected candidates are available." It appears that since the selected candidates had joined as such, the petitioner was not permitted to resume work. An application for modification was filed by the petitioner to direct the District Magistrate to allow petitioner to work. Thereafter another order was passed on 1.2.1994, which reads as under:- "The cause list is revised. The learned Standing Counsel is not present. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that subsequent to passing of an interim order by this Court on 19.12.91, the petitioner, who is a handicapped person, which position is admitted in the counter affidavit, has not been allowed to work and has not been paid salary since 19.12.91. By an application for modifying the order dated 19.12.91 and directing the respondent District Magistrate, Etawah to permit the petitioner to work as regular in service as Class-III employee and pay his regular salary. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents, in fact, have violated the order dated 19.12.91 as there has been no appointment on the post on which the petitioner was working after due selection. The learned Standing counsel may file counter affidavit to this application within one month. Let the petition be listed for admission after one month. Until further orders of this Court, now and onwards, the petitioner shall be paid his salary regularly month by month as and when it falls due and it would be open for the respondents to take work or not to take work from the petitioner. The matter regarding payment of past salary can considered after receipt of the counter affidavit." Pursuant to this order, the petitioner was allowed to join in April, 1994. The writ petition was finally disposed of on 8.9.1999 by following orders:- "Heard Sri Swapnil Kumar holding brief of Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.J. Sahai, learned Standing Counsel. The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit stating that he is working with the respondents and by order dt. 7.1.1999 he has been posted as Ahalmad in the court of Additional Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that he is a physically handicapped and as per government orders issued from time to time 2% posts are reserved for physically handicapped persons. In this regard the petitioner may make a fresh representation before the authority concerned. In case such a representation is made by the petitioner within two months the same shall be decided by a speaking order by concerned respondent within a further period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. With the aforesaid direction this writ petition is finally disposed of.";