ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to absorb the services of the petitioners as Registration Clerk in the office of Inspector General of Registration. Records reveal that petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 27230 of 2003, which was carried in appeal, and all such appeals have been decided with Special Appeal No. 767 of 2004 being leading case : State of U.P. and others Vs. Raj Kumar Srivastava and others. The division bench by an exhausting judgment has been placed to hold that all the persons are ineligible for absorption in accordance with law. The conclusions of the division bench, in that regard, are extracted hereinafter:- "From a threadbare discussion of the facts of the cases before us and the legal position in the matter of regularization, we record our conclusion as follows:- (I) None of the daily wagers before us are entitled for consideration for regularization as Registration Clerk in the Stamp and Registration Department, State of U.P, as they do not fulfill the requirement either of the Regularization Rules, 1979 [as per the directions of Khagesh Kumar (supra)] or the Regularization Rules, 1998 (enforced w.e.f. 9.7.1998). (ii) The daily wage Registration Clerks had succeeded in continuing in the Stamp and Registration Department, State of U.P. by misuse of the process of the Court by filing successive writ petitions and special appeals. Their claims were rejected twice and thrice (in most of the cases) and their services were terminated in terms of the Rule 8 of the Rules' 1979, by the Competent Authorities after due consideration. (iii) These daily wagers had succeeded in getting interim orders from the Court and had continued as such but not a single writ petition or special appeal had been decided on merits of their rejection/termination orders. Repeated directions were issued by the Courts to consider their claim without adjudication on merits ignoring the fact that their services were not required in the Registration Department and they could not continue on daily wage after rejection of their claim for regularization as a consequence of Rule 8 of the Rules' 1979. (iv) The direction of the Inspector General of Registration in not holding regular selection for the post of Registration Clerks cannot be said to be in contravention or violation of the directions of the Supreme Court in Khagesh Kumar (supra) as, infact, there was no such positive direction. (v) The learned Single Judge in the judgement and order dated 11.5.2004, could not have taken exception to the decision of the Inspector General of Registration Department/ State of U.P. in not holding regular selection for the post of Registration Clerks as it was exclusively within the domain of the Executive Authority. (vi) The directions of the learned Single Judge dated 11.05.2004, to the respondents to absorb all daily wagers on the post of Registration Clerks by preparation of a seniority list against all existing and future vacancies are simply in contravention of the Statutory Rules. (vii) The judgment and order dated 11.05.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge, under challenge, is a result of misreading and misconstruction of the directions of the Supreme Court in Khagesh Kumar (supra) and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. (viii) The judgement and order dated 27.11.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby affirmed for the reasoning given herein before. (ix) The entire exercise of regularization undertaken by IG Registration was tainted by the vice of non adherence to the Regularization Rules, 1998 and was per-se illegal. (x) The decision taken by the Cabinet of State Ministers (Mantri Parishad) and the promulgation of the Government Orders dated 8.9.2010 and 13.12.2010, as a result thereof, giving continuance to the daily wagers, who were working on the basis of interim orders of this Court, is in teeth of the pronouncement of the Constitution bench judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (3). It had even otherwise resulted in overriding the Rules' 1998 framed by the Governor under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which was not permitted in law. (xi) The daily wage Registration Clerks who were not in employment between two dates i.e. 29.6.1991 and 9.7.1998 in the exigencies of the registration department and were continuing on the strength of the interim orders of the Courts, were not entitled for regularization under the Regularization Rules' 1998. (xii) All the special appeals filed by the State of U.P and the IG Registration (covered by the 2nd group) are consequently, allowed. The Special appeals and the writ petitions filed by the daily wagers (in the 1st and 3rd group) are, hereby dismissed.
(2.) Before parting with the judgement, we are constrained to record that the entire exercise of regularization of daily wagers as Registration Clerks in the Stamp and Registration Department, State of U.P., was an effort to extend illegal benefit to the chosen few in order to bring them within the frame work of Regularization Rules 1998. This entire exercise smacks of malafide on the part of the State Government/Inspector General of Registration Department.
(3.) The public funds have been misused at the hands of the State Authorities. The Principal Secretary, Stamp and Registration, U.P., Lucknow, for the reasons best known to him, did not examine the matter despite directions given by us and acted illegally and recklessly in justifying the regularization of 392 Registration Clerks made in the department. We, therefore, direct the Chief Secretary of the State of U.P. to take up the matter and initiate an enquiry into the illegal exercise of regularization made by the State Officials. The role of the officers of the Registration department including the then IG Registration, U.P. Allahabad shall be inquired and responsibility be fixed upon all those who were sitting at the helm of the affairs and those who were involved in the entire process of regularization. The recovery for misuse of State Exchequer be also initiated against all those guilty, after fixing their responsibility after affording them opportunity to explain. A report may be submitted by the Chief Secretary to the High Court through Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.;