YADAV, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking a relief to quash the Advertisement dated 12. 1. 1990 Annx. 7 to the writ petitioner inviting the applications for two posts of Lower Division Clerk ignoring the claim of the petitioner's regularisation in pursuance of Annex. 6 to the writ Petition wherein the Petitioner along with one Shri Hari Ratan Ojha were found to be senior most eligible persons having requisite qualification in the department and were further found to be entitled to be regularised and absorbed against two existing vacant posts of Lower Division Clerk in the department THE respondents instead of absorbing and regularising the petitioner as well as Shri Hai Ratan Ojha in pursuance of Annx. 6 to the writ petition against the aforesaid two existing vacancies of Lower Division Clerk advertised the posts vide Annx. 7 to the writ petition.
(2.) THE petitioner is seeking the aforesaid relief for quashing the Notification dated 12. 1. 90 Annx. 7 to the writ petition and for regularisation of his services against the vacant existing posts of Lower Division Clerk on the ground, inter alia, that the petitioner was appointed by the respondent in the year 1971 on work-charged basis and thereafter his services were retrenched. Against the retrenchment order passed by them on the application of the petitioner a reference was made by the respondents to the Industrial Tribunal on 3. 12. 75. THE Industrial Tribunal set aside the retrenchment order passed against the petitioner as well as against Shri Hari Ratan Ojha and directed the respondents to reinstate them in service with full back wages. Against the aforesaid judgment of the Industrial Tribunal, the respondents had filed S. B. Civil Misc. Writ Petition before this Court, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 3. 1. 83 and as such, the judgment passed by the Industrial Tribunal was upheld. Against the judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding the judgment passed by the Industrial Tribunal, the respondents filed D. B Civil Special Appeal before this Court,which was dismissed on 14. 1. 84 and judgment passed by the learned Single Judge was upheld. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid judgments passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of this Court had attained finality. It is further alleged in Paragraph 4 of the writ petition that the petitioner is working in the office of the respondents for the last 19 years on the date of filing of the writ petition, now 23 years on the date of decision but his services have not been regularised as yet. Although they are being paid regular Pay Scale of Lower Division Clerk but the petitioner is treated as 'munshi' due to non-availability of the post of Lower Division Clerk in the department. It is also alleged that vide Annx. 7 dated 12. 1. 90, after occurrence of two permanent vacancies of Lower Division Clerk, these posts were advertised inviting applications ignoring the claim of the petitioner's regularisation. After service of notices, respondents No. 1 and 2 were given time by this Court for filing reply to the writ petition but reasons best known to the respondents, they did not file any reply to the writ petition and as such, the averments made in the writ petition remained unrebulted. I have heard Mr. G. K. Vyas, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr Anil Kumar Singh, learned Counsel , for Respondents and critically gone through the material available on record.
(3.) THE main thrust of argument of Mr. G. K. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner is that similarly circumstanced Shri Hari Ratan Ojha although junior to the petitioner has filed S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 548 of 1990 known as Hari Ratan Ojha v. Urban Improvement Trust & another challenging the impugned Advertisement/notification dated 12. 1. 90 Annx. 7 to the writ petition verbatim on the same ground, on which the instant writ petition has been challenged by the petitioner. It is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the earlier writ petition No. 548/90 Hari Ratan Ojha v. Urban Improvement Trust & another, the respondents had filed a detail reply justifying the Advertisement/notification dated 12. 1. 90 Annx. 7 to the writ petition but the reply filed by the respondents was negatived by the learned Single Judge and it was held in that case, that Shri Hari Ratan Ojha is entitled to be absorbed as Lower Division Clerk in the regular Pay Scale. It is also brought to my notice that after decision of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 548/90 on 27. 5. 90 holding the similarly circumstanced Shri Hari Ratan Ojha entitled to be absorbed as Lower Division Clerk in the regular Pay Scale, the respondents had filed S. B. civil Special Appeal No. 436/92 known as Chairman, U. I. T. & another v. Hari Ratan Ojha. THE aforesaid Special Appeal was dismissed by a speaking judgment by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Shri M. C. Jain and Hon'ble Shri Y. R. Meena, JJ. on 24. 9. 1992. It is also brought to my notice that in pursuance of the judgment given in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 548/90 decided by the learned Single Judge on 27. 5. 92 and after dismissal of the Special Appeal No. 436/92 by the aforesaid Division Bench, the respondents have already regularised the services of the similarly circumstanced Shri Hari Ratan Ojha in the regular Pay Scale. In view of the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, the original record of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 548/90 as well as the original record of D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 436/92 have been summoned today. Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents, is not controverting the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In reply to the aforesaid argument, learned counsel , for Respondents placed reliance on a decision rerfdered by another Division Beach of this Court in the case of Nyas Employees Union, Jodhpur. V. State of Rajasthan (l ). ;