LexKHAGESH KUMAR AND ORS. versus INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.,
KHAGESH KUMAR AND ORS.
v.
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 27, 1995
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND B.P . .!EEVAN REDDY, .I.I.)
Se1vice Law--{f.P. Regulation of Ad Hoc Appointment (On post out-
side the purview of the Public Sector Commission) Rules, 1979-Rule
+-Registration Clerks employed on daily wage basis-Regularisation
of-Di1rctions issued
A
B
c
The petitioners were appointed as Registration Clerks on daily wage
basis for short period/periods in an year and on the expiry of the period
.their services were terminated. Such appointments were authorised by the
Governor for the particular year only subject to the condition that the
posting of Registration Clerks on daily wage basis shall in no case exceed D
three months in the year. Some of them were appointed on the same basis
in the next succeeding year or after a gap of one or two years.
A number of writ petitions were filed in the High Court by persons
who had worked as registration clerks on daily wage basis in the past or
who were actually working as Registration Clerks on daily wage basis
-wherein the petitioners sought regularisation of their appointment on the
post of registration clerk and prayed for quashing of the press notification
inviting applications for appointment on the post of registration clerks. In
E
a large number of cases interim orders had been passed directing that the
\\Tit petitioners 1night be allo"·ed to continue in service during the penden-
F
cy of the writ petitions.
Petitioners claimed before the High Court that they had been
regularly selected by a duly constituted Selection Committee and their
appointment should be treated as regular appointment; that they had been G
-working on daily wage basis for a number of years and, therefore, they were
entitled to be regularised on the post. The High Court rejected the claim
of the petitioners and held that nothing had been shown that the appoint-
ment of the petitioners was made after selection through a Selection
Committee; that none of the petitioners were either ad hoc employees or
even daily wagers continuously for one year or for 240 days and that mere H
117
118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A advertisement in a paper about some posts lying vacant does not confer
any right whatsoever on those who seek appointment in pursuance of the
advertisement and since the State had specifically stated that they did not
re11uire anyone to be appointed as Registration Clerks in pursuance of the
advertisement dated March 24, 1991 and they were not proposing to
B
process the said advertisement any further, the said advertisement could
not be invoked by the petitioners to seek regularisation as Registration
Clerks. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions. Hence these peti·
tions.
Petitioners urged that their appointment as Registration Clerks on
C daily wage basis was made in accordance with the procedure laid down in
paragraph 94-A read with paragraph 97 of the U.P. Registration Manual
on the basis ol' the list which was prepared under paragraph 97; that these
1irovisions are statutory rules framed under the Registration Act, 1908;
that appointment of a candidate whose name was included in the list of
D approved candidates under para 97 of the Manual, as the said paragraph
stood on 19-1-1974, was to be treated as an appointment under rule 15 of
the U.P. Registration Department (District Establishment) Ministerial
Service Rules 1978, since the words 'as it stood in January 1974' in Rule
5(2) refer to paragraph 97 of the Manual; that there were vacancies on the
post of Registration Clerks and some of the petitioners had been working
E
as Registration Clerks on daily wage basis since much before 1.10.1986 and
they would be entitled to be considered for regularisation under the U.P.
Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments (on posts outside the purview of
the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979; that many of them had
rendered continuous service for more than 240 days in a year and that they
F
G
\\'ere entitled to be regularised: that their st!rvices were availed as an
apprentice under provisions of paragraph 101 of the Manual, and finally
that even if the petitioners were not entitled to seek regularisation, they
should be given preference in the matter of appointment on the post
of Registration Clerk whenever regular appointment was made on that
post.
The respondents submitted that the provision contaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.