Atul Kumar Nigam v. State of U.P. and Ors.

The Judgment of the Court :vas delivered by S.C. AGRAWAL, J. Leave granted. The appellant was initially appointed as Registration Clerk on daily Wage basis by the District Registrar, District Jhansi, by order dated Sep- C tember 27, 1990. While the appellant was working as Registration Clerk, the District Registrar, District .lhansi, issued a notice/advertisement for filling up six posts of Registration Clerks on regular basis. Out of six posts five posts were to be filled up from and amongst the general candidates and the sixth post was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. The D District Registrar, District Jhansi constituted a Selection Committee for the said appointment. The appellant appeared before the said Selection Committee on February 24, 1991 and was selected. He was appointed on the post of Registration Clerk on the basis of said selection and he joined as Registration Clerk on February 25, 1991, but by order dated June 15, E 1991 his services were terminated. The appellant filed a writ petition (W.P. No. 17883/91) in the Allahabad High Court which was heard alongwith special appeals and writ petitions of other Registration Clerks employed on daily wage basis and the same was dismissed by common judgment and order dated February 8, 1995. 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 hy a duly constituted Selection Con1n1ittee 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 G 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provisions of Rule 22 of the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (District Recruitment) Rules, 1975 which had been replaced by the Subordinate H A Offices Ministerial Staff (District Recruitment) Rules, 1985 as amended upto date and thus there was defect in the procedure of the said selection a~d 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 B 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. 17883/91 is set aside and the said writ petition is remitted to the High Court to dispose of the same on merits. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal Allowed.