1. Heard Sri Satyendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri B.P. Nag, Advocate for respondents-Khadi Gramodyog.
2. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize petitioners no. 1 to 4 on the post of Katai Paryavekshak and petitioner no. 5 on the post of Chowkidar.
3. It is said that petitioners no. 1 to 4 were engaged to perform work of Katai and Bunai since 1985 on daily wage basis. In this regard experience certificate was issued on 27.02.1993 in respect of petitioners no. 1 to 3. With respect to petitioner no. 4 experience certificate was issued on 05.06.1993 and it states that he is working for the last four years, which takes his engagement to 1989. Petitioner no. 5, as per his experience certificate dated 27.02.1993, is also working since December, 1985. The petitioners claimed to have made representations dated 05.03.1993 and 29.05.1992 (Annexures-27, 28 and 29 to the writ petition) requesting respondents to regularize them since they are working as daily wager for quite long time. Thereafter they approached this Court in the present writ petition, wherein an interim order was passed on 13.07.1993 directing respondents to decide petitioners' representations.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 4 sworn by V.C. Srivastava, Senior J.C.E.O., Khadi Board. It is pointed out that seeking appointment on regular basis petitioner no. 4 submitted an application (Annexure-20 to the writ petition). Petitioners no. 1 to 4 were called for interview but since there was no such application submitted by petitioner no. 5 he was not called for. None of the petitioners were found suitable for regular appointment, hence they were rejected by order dated 30.08.1993.
5. It appears that thereupon petitioners were terminated vide order dated 15.09.1994, whereagainst they preferred Writ Petition No. 5164 (SS) of 1994, which was dismissed by this Court (by Hon'ble I.P. Vasishth, J.) vide order dated 31.10.1994. Petitioners preferred Special Appeal No. 36 (SB) of 1995, wherein the judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge dismissing writ petition was upheld but it was modified so as to dismissing writ petition on alternative remedy of approaching Labour Court. The operative part of the Division Bench judgment dated 02.07.1996, read as under:
"In view of the discussion held above, we partly modify the order passed by the learned Single Judge only to the extent that the petitioners, if they so choose, may approach the Labour Court for redressal of their grievance. The writ petition is, thus, dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. That being the position, we further provide that the observation made by the learned Single Judge "Under these circumstances, fault could not possibly be found with the termination of their services" shall not be taken into account or shall, in any manner, prejudicially affect the case of the petitioners in case they approach the Labour Court. We maintain the last part of the order passed by the learned Single Judge that in case the factory reopens and the petitioners approach, in that event, as provided, the opposite parties shall take into consideration, the petitioners' representation, in case persons junior to the petitioners have been provided with work.
The Special Appeal stands finally disposed of in the manner indicated above."
6. Since petitioners have already been terminated, the question of their regularization does not arise at all. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that petitioners have worked for more than five years and, therefore, were entitled for regularization. Had they been regularized, question of termination would not have arisen and, therefore, they are entitled for regularization. He drew my attention to Apex Court's judgement in U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Pooran Chandra Pandey and others, 2007(11) SCC 92; State of Karnataka and others Vs. M.L. Kesari and others, 2010(9) SCC 247; and para 53 of the Constitution Bench judgement in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi and others, 2006(4) SCC 1.
7. The submission is thoroughly misconceived. First of all the very concept of regularization in the case in hand claimed by petitioners is wholly unsustainable and the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and insistence is thoroughly unfounded and misconceived. Petitioners were engaged in a job of vocational kind, i.e., in the blanket section of Khadi Board for some time. They were considered for regular appointment but not found suitable. In any case, the unit has already been closed and they were terminated in 1994, whereagainst writ petition has been dismissed by this Court on the ground of alternative remedy. Once petitioners have been terminated claim for regularization would not be available to them.
8. Even otherwise, there was no question of direction for regularization in the case in hand as petitioners were not entitled for regularization even at the time when they filed this writ petition, i.e., in 1993.
9. In order to hold an office or appointment in State, or where the funds are being released from State Exchequer for payment of salary to the appointees, it goes without saying that State has to make appointments following the process of open recruitment, giving equal opportunity of consideration to all concerned. In other words, an appointment has to be made in such a case by State or its authority following procedure, which is consistent with Article 16(1) of the Constitution. It includes advertisement of vacancies i.e. notifying to the Employment Exchange, advertisement in newspaper and/or other means.
10. In State of Orissa and Anr Vs. Mamata Mohanty, 2011 (3) SCC 436, the Court said:
"....some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. In other words there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly. Even if the names of candidates are requisitioned from Employment Exchange, in addition thereto it is mandatory on the part of the employer to invite applications from all eligible candidates from the open market by advertising the vacancies in newspapers having wide circulation or by announcement in Radio and Television ...."
11. The Court further said that no person can be appointed even on temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates. In that case, appointments were made after notifying vacancies to Employment Exchange and putting a note on the notice board. The Court condemned it and said:
"If any appointment is made by merely inviting names from the Employment Exchange or putting a note on the Notice Board etc. that will not meet the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such a course violates the mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it deprives the candidates who are eligible for the post, from being considered."
12. The Court went on to observe that a person appointed illegally or not employed after following procedure consistent with Articles 14 and 16, shall not be entitled for salary. The Court said:
"A person employed in violation of these provisions is not entitled to any relief including salary. For a valid and legal appointment mandatory compliance of the said Constitutional requirement is to be fulfilled. The equality clause enshrined in Article 16 requires that every such appointment be made by an open advertisement as to enable all eligible persons to compete on merit."
13. It is interesting to notice that in State of Orissa and Anr Vs. Mamata Mohanty (supra), the Court also observed that if a person has continued to work, that by itself will not confer any right upon him since principle of holding over or concept of adverse possession is not applicable in service jurisprudence. Relying on its earlier decision in Dr. M.S. Patil Vs. Gulbarga University and Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3783, the Court said:
"The concept of adverse possession of lien on post or holding over are not applicable in service jurisprudence. Therefore, continuation of a person wrongly appointed on post does not create any right in his favour."
14. In order to claim regularization, it has to be kept in mind as to what is the concept of regularization. In other words, what are the necessary constituents or indicias, which must exist so as to entitle a person to claim regularization in employment having not been appointed in accordance with law.
15. The appointments in public services are made in various ways. The purest form of appointment is one which is made following the procedure laid down in statute consistent with Article 16 of the Constitution of India. When a vacancy on a civil/public post is available, it is made known to every one, eligible and willing, to apply therefor, so as to be considered thereagainst. It conforms the fundamental right of equal opportunity of employment to all qualified and willing persons for such employment. When this opportunity is given and appointment is made after following procedure prescribed in statute, the appointment is absolutely just, valid and called the purest form of appointment.
16. Then comes an appointment, where vacancies are advertised, consideration for employment is afforded to all qualified and willing but in the process of selection and appointment there is some procedural defect which may not affect the very appointment at its root. Such an appointment at the best can be an irregular appointment which would confer a right upon the appointee to continue and hold the post subject to subsequent rectification or validation by competent authority, expressly or impliedly.
17. Then comes an appointment, fortuitous in nature, made in certain exigencies. For example, a short term, stop gap, officiating, daily wage etc. appointments, which normally is opted when requirement and tenure is precarious and by the time, procedure is followed, very purpose would stand frustrated. Such appointments are made normally by pick and choose method, i.e., whosoever come and apply, whether after getting knowledge on his own or otherwise, is given opportunity to serve for the limited purpose and tenure, which is called, sudden requirement and exigency of situation. Such appointments do not confer any right upon the appointee, either to hold post for a long time or to get the post in substantive manner. Above exception has been pleaded and allowed though it deprives right of equal opportunity of consideration to all eligible and willing persons by advertising the vacancy etc. only for the reason that requirement is sudden, tenure precarious and delay shall cause greater public loss. Otherwise, such appointments, in other words, comes in the category of illegal when tested on the anvil of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. One can say that applying doctrine of reasonable classification and considering fortuitous nature of requirement and process followed for its achievement, per se it may not be termed as illegal so long as that requirement is there but in case it is extended so as to confer a benefit more than such requirement, it will cross the dotted line of validity and will entered in the realm of illegality. Such appointments have been held void ab initio and not entitled to confer any right upon appointee so as to claim a substantive right on the post in his holding, in whatever capacity, whether daily wager, officiating, ad hoc etc.
18. The maxim 'dura lex, sed lex', which means "law is hard but it is the law", in my view, aptly applies in the cases where incumbents have come to an office not following procedure consistent with constitutional requirement of Article 16(1) but otherwise and thereafter claim equitable and other consideration for sustaining their entry and occupancy of the office for all times to come. In Raghunath Rai Bareja and another Vs. Punjab National Bank and others, 2007(2) SCC 230 it is said:
"When there is a conflict between law and equity, it is the law which has to prevail . . . . . Equity can only supplement the law, but it cannot supplant or override it."
19. It has been followed in State of Uttaranchal and Anr. Vs. Rajendra Singh Kandwal 2011(5) AWC 5075 (SC).
20. The Constitution Bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (supra) has held that illegal appointments cannot be asked to be regularized as that would amount to violating the fundamental right of equal opportunity of employment to those who have been denied such opportunity. The Constitution Bench decision has overruled dozens of earlier decisions taking a view otherwise so as to show sympathy in favour of those who got or managed their appointments illegally, i.e., without complying the requirement of equal opportunity of employment to all others, came to the office on account of their individual resources and managing continuance for quite some time or long time, and then claim a substantive right on the basis of long tenure, they have managed to continue. In other words, the incumbent comes to the office by virtue of a pick and choose method, usurps office by back door or whatever other term one may use, despite obviously it being short of compliance of requirement of Article 16(1) of the Constitution, but having maintained such benefit to continue for quite some time which normally has the support of appointing authorities also, the beneficiary comes to claim a sense of sympathy on the basis of such long continued usurpation of office. In other words, a violator of law claims a substantive right for having violated law continuously for quite a long time with regard to a public office.
21. In the matter of appointment there is no principle of adverse possession but a plea somewhat similar thereto many a times is raised that since one has continued to work for quite long time, now he should be allowed to stay in the office for rest of tenure otherwise his family would suffer. A situation is created where sympathy is sought not in favour of victims, i.e., those who were denied right of equal opportunity of employment but in favour of those who have violated law, contravened it, breached it with impunity, and, have continued to do so for quite some time, and now, boldly and blatantly claim a kind of right to retain such benefit of breach of law, for all times to come, and, for that purpose, various pleas in the name of equity, sympathy, compassion etc. are raised and pleaded. Many a times, find favour in the Courts of Law. Fortunately, the Constitution Bench, after having a retrospect of all earlier authorities, has taken a clear stand against such kind of favour shown to those who have come in public office, by denying right of equal opportunity to others. The Court in unequivocal terms has observed that any favour shown to such violators would be a misplaced sympathy.
22. Regularisation Rules, if any, is an attempt to give a cover to such illegal appointments and, therefore, may have to be tested on the anvil of constitutional validity under Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. However in the present case, no such Rule exists. It exists, every requirement entitling a persons to be considered for regularization must be held to be mandatory and any deviation therefrom will either disentitle the claimant from such benefit or any attempt by executive otherwise would render such action of even executive authority, ultra vires.
23. After Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (supra) there is a chain of authorities wherein the above view has been followed and some of the authorities which tried to take a different view, subsequently, even have been overruled and clarified. Some of the recent authorities, in this regard, just to recapitulate and remind the exposition of law with regard to regularization may be referred to hereat.
24. Commenting upon one time scheme of regularization, in State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Daya Lal & others, 2011(2) SCC 429, the Court in para 12 of the judgment said:
"12. The decision relied upon by the High Court namely the decision in Anshkalin Samaj Kalyan Sangh of the High Court no doubt directed the state government to frame a scheme for regularization of part-time cooks and chowkidars. It is clear from the said decision, that such scheme was intended to be an one-time measure. Further said decision was rendered by the High Court prior to Uma Devi, relying upon the decision of this Court in Daily Rated Casual Labour v. Union of India 1988 (1) SCC 122, Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation 1990 (1) SCC 361 and Dharwad District PWD Literate Dalit Wage Employees Association v. State of Karnataka 1990 (2) SCC 396. These directions were considered, explained and in fact, overruled by the Constitution Bench in Uma Devi. The decision in Anshkalin Samay Kalyan Singh is no longer good law. At all events, even if there was an one time scheme for regularisation of those who were in service prior to 1.5.1995, there cannot obviously be successive directions for scheme after scheme for regularization of irregular or part-time appointments. Therefore the said decision is of no assistance."
25. In Union of India and others Vs. Vartak Labour Union, 2011(4) SCC 200 in para 16 of the judgment the Court said:
"16. We are of the opinion that the Respondent Union's claim for regularization of its members merely because they have been working for BRO for a considerable period of time cannot be granted in light of several decisions of this Court, wherein it has been consistently held that casual employment terminates when the same is discontinued, and merely because a temporary or casual worker has been engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules. (See: Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi (3) and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1; Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Ors. (2008) 10 SCC 1; State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Ganapathi Chaya Nayak and Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 115; Union of India and Anr. v. Kartick Chandra Mondal and Anr.; Satya Prakash and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2010) 4 SCC 179 and Rameshwar Dayal v. Indian Railway Construction Company Limited and Ors. 2010) 11 SCC 733." (emphasis added)
26. In Brij Mohan Lal Vs. Union of India and others, 2012(6) SCC 502, dealing with Fast Track Courts, the Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (supra) and said that therein the principle has been laid down that in matters of public employment, absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual or casual daily wage or ad hoc employees appointed and continued for long in such public employment would be de hors the constitutional scheme of public employment and would be improper.
27. In University of Rajasthan and another Vs. Prem Lata Agarwal, 2013(3) SCC 705 after referring to the dictum in Uma Devi (supra), the court observed that when a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized by relevant rules/procedure, he is aware of the consequences of appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed on a post when an appointment on the post could be made only by following proper procedure.
28. Recently in Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra and Ors. vs. State of Orissa and Ors., 2014(2) SCALE 589; Nand Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 2014 (3) AWC 2378 (SC); Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai & Ors. Vs. Thiru R. Govindaswamy and Ors. (2014) 4 SCC 769 and Director, Printing and Stationary Department, U.P. Government Press & Ors. Vs. Moti Lal and Ors., (2014) 2 UPLBEC 1193, the Court reiterated and followed Constitution Bench decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Umadevi (supra).
29. In Nand Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (supra), referring to Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (supra), the Court said that the daily wagers are not appointees in the strict sense of the term 'appointment'. They do not hold a post. They cannot therefore claim any benefit of regularization. The Court observed:
"Appointment on daily wage basis is not an appointment to a post according to the rules. Usually, the projects in which the daily wagers were engaged, having come to an end, their appointment is necessarily terminated for want of work. Therefore, the status and rights of daily wagers of a Government concern are not equivalent to that of a Government servant and his claim to permanency has to be adjudged differently." (emphasis added)
30. In the present case, it is not argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are entitled to be considered for regularization under some statutory provision or there is any scheme enforceable in law, formulated by respondents which entitled petitioners to claim regularization.
31. Now coming to the question of applicability of direction contained in para 53 of Constitution Bench judgement in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (supra).
32. I find that here also the submission is thoroughly misconceived. Having given my anxious consideration, I do not find any force there to. In para 53 of the judgment, in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (supra), the exception carved out by Apex Court is confined to the cases where the appointments are 'irregular' and not 'illegal' as explained in State of Mysore Vs. S.V.Narayanappa A.I.R. 1967 SC 1071, R.N. Nanjundappa Vs. T. Thimmiah 1972 1 SCC 409 and B.N. Nagrajan Vs. State of Karnataka 1949 SCC 507.
33. The distinction between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments as referred to in para 53 of the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (supra) has been dealt with in a subsequent decision in State of M.P. And others Vs. Lalit Kumar Verma (2007) 1 SCC 575 wherein para 12 it has been held:
"12. The question which, thus, arises for consideration, would be: Is there any distinction between "irregular appointment" and "illegal appointment"? The distinction between the two terms is apparent. In the event the appointment is made in total disregard of the Constitutional scheme as also the recruitment rules framed by the employer, which is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the recruitment would be an illegal one; whereas there may be cases where, although, substantial compliance with the constitutional scheme as also the rules have been made, the appointment may be irregular in the sense that some provisions of some rules might not have been strictly adhered to."
34. Learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage submitted that in Mineral Exploration Corpn. Employees' Union Vs. Mineral Exploration Corpn. Limited and another, (2006) 6 SCC 310 the Apex Court issued some direction for regularization of the workmen who were continuing for a long time, referring to para 53 in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (supra), therefore, the petitioners is also entitled. However, it would be useful to notice that relying on Mineral Exploration Corpn. Employees' Union Vs Mineral Exploration Corpn. Limited and another (supra), a similar argument was raised in State of M.P. Vs Lalit Kumar Verma (supra), but the same has been negatived by the Apex Court by referring to para 39 of Mineral Exploration Corpn. Employees' (supra), and the observations of the Apex Court in paras 13 to 16 of the judgment of Lalit Kumar Verma (supra) are as under:
"13. In National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Somvir Singh (supra) it has been held: (SCC pp.500-01) paras 23-25) "23. The contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the appointments were irregular and not illegal, cannot be accepted for more than one reason. They were appointed only on the basis of their applications. The Recruitment Rules were not followed. Even the Selection Committee had not been properly constituted. In view of the ban on employment, no recruitment was permissible in law. The reservation policy adopted by the appellant had not been maintained. Even cases of minority had not been given due consideration.
24. The Constitution Bench thought of directing regularization of the services only of those employees whose appointments were irregular as explained in State of Mysore v. S.V.Narayanappa, R.N. Najundappa v. T.Thimmiah and B.N. Nagaranaj v. State of Karnataka wherein this Court observed: (Uma Devi (3) case, SCC p.24, para 16).
"16. In B.N.Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka, this Court clearly held that the words "regular" or "regularisation" do not connote permanence and cannot be construed so as to convey an idea of the nature of tenure of appointments. They are terms calculated to condone any procedural irregularities and are meant to cure only such defects as are attributable to methodology followed in making the appointments."
25. Judged by the standards laid down by this Court in the aforementioned decisions, the appointments of the respondents are illegal. They do not, thus, have any legal right to continue in service."
14. In R.S.Garg V. State of U.P. 2006(6 SCC 430 it has been held by this Court : (SCC p.448,para 24) "24. The original appointment of the 3rd respondent being illegal and not irregular, the case would not come within the exception carved out by the Constitution Bench. Furthermore, relaxation, if any, could have been accorded only in terms of Rule 28 of the Rules; Rule 28 would be attracted when undue hardship in any particular case is caused. Such relaxation of Rules shall be permissible only in consultation with the Commission. It is not a case where an undue hardship suffered by the 3rd respondent could legitimately be raised being belonging to a particular class of employee. No such case, in law could have been made out. It, in fact, caused hardship to other employees belonging to the same category, who were senior to him; and thus, there was absolutely no reason why an exception should have been made in his case."
(See also State of Gujarat V. Karshanbhai K. Rabari (2006) 6 SCC 21.)
15. Yet, recently, in Principal, Mehar Chand Polytechnic v. Anu Lamba (2006) 7 SCC 161 it was held: (SCC p.171, para 35) "35. The respondents did not have legal right to be absorbed in service. They were appointed purely on temporary basis. It has not been shown by them that prior to their appointments, the requirements of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution had been complied with. Admittedly, there did not exist any sanctioned post. The Project undertaken by the Union of India although continued for some time was initially intended to be a time bound one. It was not meant for generating employment. It was meant for providing technical education to the agriculturists. In the absence of any legal right in the respondents, the High Court, thus, in our considered view, could not have issued a writ of or in the nature of mandamus."
16. We may, however, notice that in Mineral Exploration the attention of this Court was not drawn to the earlier precedents including a three-judge Bench of this Court in B.N. Nagarajan V. State of Karnataka."
35. The same view has been reiterated in Municipal Corpn., Jabalpur vs. Om Prakash Dubey (2007) 1 SCC 373 (para 10 to 19 ) State of U.P. And others Vs. Deshraj (2007) 1 SCC 257 (para 9 to 12) and Government of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. K. Brahmanandam and others, (2008) 5 SCC 241.
36. All these judgements considering the distinction between irregular and illegal appointment have been noticed recently in State of Karnataka and others Vs. Sri G.V. Chandrashekar, JT 2009(4) SC 367 and it has been held that the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Uma Devi (supra) is binding on all the Courts including the Apex Court till the same is overruled by a larger Bench and cannot be ignored at all. It has been followed even thereafter in State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh and others, 2009(4) SCC 77; State of Uttranchal Vs. Alok Sharma and others, JT 2009(6) SC 463; and Civil Appeal No. 3337-3361 of 2009, Harmindar Kaur and others Vs. Union of India and others decided on 06.05.2009.
37. Besides above, it is also to be noticed hereat that in August, 2014, learned counsel for the petitioner has sited an overruled judgment, which is really unfortunate. The judgment in U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Pooran Chandra Pandey (supra) has specifically been overruled by a Larger Bench of Apex Court in Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and Ors. (2008) 10 SCC 1.
38. In view of above discussion the writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 21.08.2014 AK Court No. -27 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 5199 of 1993 Petitioner :- Rama Shanker Singh & Others Respondent :- Mukhya Karya Palak U.P. Rajya Khadi Grammodyog Board And Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- R.P.Pandey,R.S.Tripathi,Rahul Singh,S.K.Srivastava,Satyendra Kr. Tiwari,V.B.Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Kapil Dev,B P Nag Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. This is an application for recall of the order dated 04.08.2014, whereby restoration application as well as delay condonation application were rejected.
2. I have gone through the affidavit filed in support of this application. The cause shown for absence of learned counsel for the applicants, when the case was called in the revised list, is sufficient. The order dated 04.08.2014 is recalled and the applications are restored to their original number. This application is, accordingly, allowed.
Dt/-21.08.2014 AK-(Appl. No. 73820 of 2014) Court No. -27 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 5199 of 1993 Petitioner :- Rama Shanker Singh & Others Respondent :- Mukhya Karya Palak U.P. Rajya Khadi Grammodyog Board And Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- R.P.Pandey,R.S.Tripathi,Rahul Singh,S.K.Srivastava,Satyendra Kr. Tiwari,V.B.Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Kapil Dev,B P Nag Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1. The application is restored to its original number vide order of date passed on Application No. 73820 of 2014.
2. Heard.
3. Delay in filing recall application is explained satisfactorily. It is hereby condoned. The application is accordingly allowed.
Dt/-21.08.2014 AK-(Appl. No. 109817 of 2013) Court No. -27 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 5199 of 1993 Petitioner :- Rama Shanker Singh & Others Respondent :- Mukhya Karya Palak U.P. Rajya Khadi Grammodyog Board And Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- R.P.Pandey,R.S.Tripathi,Rahul Singh,S.K.Srivastava,Satyendra Kr. Tiwari,V.B.Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Kapil Dev,B P Nag Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. The application is restored to its original number vide order of date passed on Application No. 73820 of 2014.
2. This is an application for recall of the order dated 01.02.2013, whereby the writ petition was dismissed.
3. I have gone through the affidavit filed in support of this application. The cause shown for absence of learned counsel for the applicants, when the case was called in the revised list, is sufficient. The order dated 01.02.2013 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number. The application is, accordingly, allowed.
Dt/-21.08.2014 AK-(Appl. No. 109816 of 2013)