- (1.) O. P. Garg, J. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought a writ of cer- tiorari to quash the order dated 11-9-1995, Annexure 12 to the writ petition, passed by Inspector General of Registration, U. P. Allahabad, where by the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. It is fur ther prayed that by means of writ of man damus respondent No. 1 Inspector General of Registration be commanded to appoint the petitioners as registration clerks with effect from 1987 and pay the salary and arrears to them at par with regularly appointed registration clerks.
(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Heard Sri R. K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner were employed as Tabulators for doing census work in the office of the Deputy Director (Census Operation) Varanasi Region, for six months and thereafter they were retrenched. Uma Shankar Dubey, petitioner No. 1 worked during the period 29-9-1981 to 31-3-1982 while petitioner No. 2, Mohd. Ahsan Mirza, remained in the employment in Census department during the period 4-8-1981 to 31-3-1982. As rentrenched employees of the census department, the petitioners were engaged on daily wage basis for clearance of arrears of work of registration clerk in the officer of Sub-Registrar, Varansai. They worked on different occasions for small patches of period during February, 1983 till March, 1987. Normally, the tenure of their engagements was about three months and the intervening breaks were of about a year, nine months or six months. On the basis of various Govern ment Orders, the petitioners claimed ap pointments as regular registration clerk in the office of Sub-Registrar, Varanasi, in pursuance of the order of this Court. The representations made by the petitioner were considered by the Inspector General of Registration. On 11-9-1995 by an elaborate speaking impugned order, the representations of the petitioners were rejected primarily on the grounds that they cannot claim appointments on the ground that they are retrenched employees of the census department. Ac cording to respondent No. 1, the petitioner had to apply for recruit ments/appointments under the Rules framed on the subject which are the Sub ordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985, U. P. Registra tion Department (District Establishment) Ministerial Service Rules, 1978 and the U. P. Registration Department Ministerial (Headquarters Establishment) Service Rules, 1979, which provide for the proce dure for appointment as registration clerk. The view taken in the impugned order is that the petitioners being trained employees may be allowed certain exemp tions with regard to the educational qualifications and age limit but they can not directly be appointed as registration clerk without being processed through the service rules.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the petitioners shall be deemed to have been regularly appointed as registration clerks and their services had to be regularised in view of the various Government orders and find that there is not even a word in the Executive Orders that the petitioners who were retrenched from the census depart ment after having worked for a short period of six months shall be entitled to regular appointments against the post of registration clerk. THE petitioners, how ever, under the Executive Order could avail of certain concessions with regard to age limit and education qualifications but certainly they have to pass through the procedure prescribed for the regular ap pointment under the rules framed for the purposes. Leaned counsel for the petitioners made reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Inspector General of Registration U. P. and another v. Awadhesh Kumar and another, in Civil Ap peal No. 70500 of 1996 arising out of SLP (C) 17381 of 1993, decided on 12th April, 1996 in which reliance was placed on the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Khagesh Kumar and others v. Inspector General of Registration, (1995 Supp. (4) SCC 1830, to support his submission that the daily wage employees have been given right to be regularised in service. I have throughly studied the two decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above and find that the case of the present petitioners is not covered by the observation/direction in the said case. In Khagesh Kumar case (supra) the Supreme Court issued the direction as follows:- " (1) The petitioners or other similarly placed persons who were employed as Registra tion Clerks on daily wage basis prior to 1-10-1986 shall be considered for regularisation under the provisions of Rule 4 of the Regularisa tion Rules provided they fulfil the requirements of Rule 4 (1) (ii) and they have completed three years' continuous service. The said period of three years' service shall be computed by taking into account the actual period during which the employee had worked as Registration Clerk on daily wage basis. The period during which such an employee has preferred the duties of Registration Clerk under Paragraph 101 of the Manual shall be counted as part of service for the purpose of such regularisation. ";