N.K. Mitra, C.J. - (1.) Special Appeal No. 253 of 1998, Atul Kumar Nigam v. State of U. P. and others, is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.2.1998 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition NO. 17883 of 1991 In terms of judgment and order of even date rendered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17885 of 1991, Sanjay Gupta and others v. State of U. P. and others, which gives rise to the Special Appeal No. 254 of 1998, Sanjay Gupta and others v. State of U. P. and others. For the sake of convenience, both the Special Appeals are being disposed of by a common Judgment.
(2.) The appellants were appointed Registration Clerks on the basis of recommendation made by a duly constituted selection committee in February, 1991. By means of identically worded order dated 15.6.1991, their services were terminated by the I.G. (Registration) without assigning any reason whatsoever and advertisement was issued for fresh appointments. The orders by which the services of the appellants were terminated as also the advertisement were challenged in the writ petitions giving rise to these appeals. The petitions were wrongly tagged with Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30582 of 1991, Hussain Ahmad v. State of U.P. and a bunch of other writ petitions filed by dally rated Registration Clerks and were dismissed for the reasons given in the Writ Petition No. 30582 of 1991, (Hussain Ahmad v. State of U. P.). Atul Kumar Nigam. the appellant of Special Appeal No. 253 of 1996 filed a Special Leave Petition (Civil) in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by its judgment and order dated 27.9.1995 passed in Civil Appeal No. 9135 of 1995, Atul Kumar Nigam LJ. State of U.P. and others, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court dated February 8, 1995 in so far as dismissal of Writ Petition No. 17883 of 1991. Similarly petition of Sanjay Gupta and others, appellants of Special Appeal No. 254 of 1998 was also dismissed along with writ petitions filed by the daily rated Registration Clerks. The order of dismissal of the writ petition came to be set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment rendered in Civil Appeal No. 9136 of 1995. Sanjay Gupta and others v. State of U. P. and others. The reasons given in the judgment are identical to those given in the Judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 9135 of 1995, Atul Kumar Ntgam v. State of U. P. and others. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Apex Court dated 27.9.1995. Atul Kumar Ntgam v. State of U. P. and others, is quoted below : "It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that his case differs from other cases dealt with by the High Court inasmuch as he had been selected for regular appointment by a duly constituted Selection Committee in accordance with the rules and the High Court has not considered this aspect of the matter. In the counter-affidavit that has been filed on behalf of the respondents before this Court, it has not been disputed that the Selection Committee was duly constituted by the District Registrar, District Jhansi on February 24, 1991 but it is asserted that while doing so the District Registrar, District Jhansi did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Rule 22 of the Subordinate Officers Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1975. which had been replaced by the Subordinate Officers Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985 as amended up-to-date and thus there was defect in the procedure of the said selection and the selection was void. This question has not been gone into by the High Court while dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. It is a question which should have been considered by the High Court before dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. The appeal is. therefore, allowed the Judgment and order of the High Court dated February 8, 1995 in so far as it relates to dismissal of Writ Petition No. 17883 of 1991 is set aside and the said writ petition is remitted to the High Court to dispose of the same on merits. No costs."
(3.) Consequent upon the aforesaid Judgments of the Supreme Court, the writ petitions were again taken up by the learned single Judge who has been pleased to dismiss the writ petitions as stated hereinabove. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioners have filed the Special Appeals in question. Learned single Judge being of the view that "issuance of advertisement was mandatory in case appointing authority invited the applications directly" held that "the non-compliance of the same caused violation of the said" since the appellants were appointed without inviting applications directly from the persons registered in the Employment Exchange. Learned single Judge, however, directed the authorities to consider the appellants for regularisation in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Khagesh Kumar and others v. I.G. Registration and others, JT 1995 (7) SC 545.;