Case Note & Summary
The appellant was initially appointed as a Registration Clerk on daily wage basis by the District Registrar, District Jhansi, by order dated September 27, 1990. While working in that capacity, the District Registrar issued an advertisement for filling six posts of Registration Clerks on regular basis, of which five posts were for general candidates and one was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. A Selection Committee was constituted by the District Registrar. The appellant appeared before the Selection Committee on February 24, 1991 and was selected. He was appointed on the post of Registration Clerk on the basis of that selection and joined on February 25, 1991. However, by order dated June 15, 1991, his services were terminated. The appellant filed writ petition No. 17883/91 in the Allahabad High Court. The High Court heard the petition along with special appeals and writ petitions of other Registration Clerks employed on daily wage basis and dismissed all of them by a common judgment and order dated February 8, 1995. The core question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in dismissing the appellant's writ petition without considering his distinct claim that he had been selected for regular appointment by a duly constituted Selection Committee in accordance with the rules. The appellant contended that his case differed from the other daily-wage Registration Clerks because he had undergone a regular selection process conducted by a duly constituted committee, and the High Court had failed to consider this aspect. The respondents did not dispute that the Selection Committee was duly constituted on February 24, 1991, but asserted that the District Registrar had not complied with the mandatory provisions of Rule 22 of the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (District Recruitment) Rules, 1975, which had been replaced by the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (District Recruitment) Rules, 1985 as amended, rendering the selection procedure defective and void. The Supreme Court observed that the question of compliance with Rule 22 and the validity of the selection had not been examined by the High Court while dismissing the writ petition. The Court held that this question should have been considered before the writ petition was dismissed. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment and order dated February 8, 1995 insofar as it related to the dismissal of writ petition No. 17883/91, and remitted the writ petition to the High Court for disposal on merits. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment and Termination - Mandatory Compliance with Recruitment Rules - Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (District Recruitment) Rules, 1975/1985, Rule 22 - The appellant, initially a daily-wage Registration Clerk, was selected for regular appointment by a Selection Committee constituted by the District Registrar; his services were later terminated, and his writ petition was dismissed by the High Court along with other daily-wage clerks without considering his distinct claim of regular selection. The respondent contended that the District Registrar did not comply with mandatory provisions of Rule 22, making the selection void. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have considered this question before dismissing the writ petition; accordingly, the High Court's order insofar as it related to the appellant's writ petition was set aside and the matter remitted for disposal on merits. Held that the High Court must examine the validity of the selection and compliance with Rule 22 (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the appellant's writ petition without considering his distinct claim of regular selection by a duly constituted Selection Committee and the alleged non-compliance with Rule 22 of the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (District Recruitment) Rules, 1975/1985.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; judgment and order of the High Court dated February 8, 1995 insofar as it relates to dismissal of writ petition No. 17883/91 set aside; writ petition remitted to High Court to dispose of on merits. No costs.
Law Points
- High Court must consider distinct claim of regular selection before dismissing writ petition
- alleged non-compliance with mandatory recruitment rules must be examined on merits
- writ petition remitted for fresh consideration
