Case Note & Summary
Background: The appellant, Satyendra Nath Bajpai, was appointed as a Registration Clerk on daily wage basis by order dated February 14, 1985. He worked as a daily wage Registration Clerk during various periods from February 14, 1985 to March 31, 1990, after which his services were not availed. The respondent is the Inspector General of Registration, Uttar Pradesh and another. Facts: The appellant filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court (Writ Petition No. 849/95 [8030/90]) seeking regularization of his services. He contended that he was shown at serial no. 1 in the approved list of candidates issued by the District Registrar, District Hardoi, and that persons whose names appeared at serial nos. 5 and 14, namely Pradyumna Kumar and Maghad Prasad, had been regularized, but he had not been regularized despite a vacancy in District Hardoi where he could be absorbed. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it was not denied that persons below the appellant in the list had been regularized and that the appellant had not been appointed though a vacancy existed. The High Court, on March 30, 1993, passed an interim order directing that the appellant be paid the regular scale of salary which other Registration Clerks were getting with effect from April 1, 1993. The appellant's writ petition was heard along with special appeals and writ petitions of other daily wage Registration Clerks, and by a common judgment dated February 8, 1995, the High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition. The appellant relied on an earlier decision of the High Court in Rajiv Kumar Shukla v. District Registrar, Hardoi & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 6167 of 1990) dated July 2, 1990, wherein a direction was given that Rajiv Kumar Shukla, who was at serial no. 34, be considered for appointment according to rules against a post which would become available in District Hardoi, and in pursuance of that order he was appointed on regular basis. Legal Issues: The core question was whether the High Court erred in dismissing the appellant's writ petition without considering the material facts relating to his seniority in the approved list, regularization of his juniors, availability of a vacancy, and the precedent in Rajiv Kumar Shukla. Arguments: The appellant argued that he was at serial no. 1 in the approved list, junior candidates were regularized, and a vacancy existed; he also relied on the High Court's direction in Rajiv Kumar Shukla. The respondents did not deny these facts in their counter affidavit. Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court observed that the High Court, while dismissing the writ petition, had not considered the aforementioned facts relating to the case of the appellant. The Court was of the opinion that the writ petition should have been considered by the High Court in light of these circumstances, including the earlier decision in Rajiv Kumar Shukla. Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court dated February 8, 1995 insofar as it related to the dismissal of the appellant's writ petition, and remitted the writ petition to the High Court for consideration on merits. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularization of Daily Wage Employees - Non-consideration of Material Facts in Writ Petition - Not mentioned - The appellant, a daily wage Registration Clerk, filed a writ petition claiming regularization on the ground that he was placed at serial no. 1 in the approved list, while junior candidates at serial nos. 5 and 14 were regularized and a vacancy existed; the High Court dismissed the writ petition without considering these admitted facts and the decision in Rajiv Kumar Shukla. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have considered these circumstances and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on merits - Held that dismissal of writ petition without considering material facts is improper (Paras not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the appellant's writ petition without considering the material facts relating to his position at serial no. 1 in the approved list, regularization of junior candidates, availability of vacancy in District Hardoi, and the earlier High Court decision in Rajiv Kumar Shukla.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court dated February 8, 1995 insofar as it dismissed Writ Petition No. 849/95 (8030/90) was set aside; the writ petition was remitted to the High Court for consideration on merits; no costs.
Law Points
- Non-consideration of material facts vitiates order
- High Court must consider relevant circumstances before dismissing writ petition
- regularization of daily wage employees based on approved list seniority and vacancy
- precedent must be considered
