MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition was dismissed in default by order dated 30.1.2013. Thereafter, an application for recall of the said order was filed only at the instance of petitioner no.3 and whereupon, the order dated 30.1.2013 was recalled.
(2.) TODAY , when the matter is taken up, Ms. Mahima Kushwaha, who has appeared, made a statement before the Court that she has instructions to press the writ petition only on behalf of petitioner no.3. She further states that in fact the restoration application being at the instance of petitioner no.3 alone, it is evident that the other petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the writ petition any further.
(3.) IN view of the said statement made by her, this writ petition is heard in relation to rights of the petitioner no.3 alone. It transpires from the record that the petitioner no.3 was working as dailywager with Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad. His services were terminated on 4.11.1987, against which the matter was taken to the Labour court and by award dated 8.12.1992 passed in favour of petitioner no.3, the order dated 4.11.1987 terminating his services, was held to be illegal and the respondents were directed to reinstate him and pay Rs.9000/ - as compensation in lieu of back wages. It seems that challenging the award, Board of High School and Intermediate Education filed Writ Petition No.25336 of 1993 and according to the petitioner no.3, it was dismissed in default on 16.11.2009. The petitioner no.3 claims that he was reinstated vide order dated 21.8.1993 w.e.f. 17.8.1993. It seems that thereafter, petitioner no.3 made a claim for being absorbed on one of 160 posts of Clerk as per Government Order dated 14.12.1990. However, when no decision was taken on his representation, Writ Petition No.4520 of 1997 was filed by the petitioner no.3, which was disposed of by order dated 19.03.1997 with direction to the concerned respondents to decide his representation in accordance with law. Thereafter, the respondent, vide order dated 27.9.1997, rejected the representation filed by the petitioner no.3 on the ground that the 25 remaining vacant posts of Junior Clerk are to be filled up by scheduled caste candidates and the petitioner no.3, being a candidate of general category, cannot be appointed against one of these posts. However, it is an admitted fact that petitioner no.3 did not challege the order dated 27.9.1997. It seems that these 25 posts of Junior Clerk were advertised by the respondents and it became subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.35247 of 1994 (Vijay Prakash Dubey and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) and Writ Petition No.37836 of 1995 (Anirudh Kumar Singh and others Vs. Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education). The writ petitions were allowed by judgment dated 20.11.2004 holding that in view of Government Order dated 14.12.1990, these posts were to be filled by absorption of daily wage employees and not by direct recruitment. Accordingly, the advertisement dated 10.8.1994 was quashed. Challenging the aforesaid judgment of learned Single Judge, it is stated that special appeal was filed, which was dismissed by order dated 12.04.2005. It is further mentioned in supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of petitioner no.3 that special leave petition filed against the aforesaid judgment was also dismissed by the Apex Court on 13.4.2011. It is pointed out that thereafter other similarly situated employees like the petitioner, were given appointment on the post of Junior Clerk. The petitioner claims to have made fresh representation on 24.11.2009 before the respondents for considering his claim for appointment on the post of Junior Clerk. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that she is pressing the writ petition only so far as it relates to prayer no.3 i.e. for consideration of the claim of petitioner no.3 for regularization of his services as per Government Order dated 14.12.1990.;