JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J
1. The petitioner who was appointed on Ad-hoc basis as Registration Clerk in the office of Sub-Registrar, Mirzapur on 6th December, 1989 has challenged the order impugned in the present writ petition dated 18th March, 1991 whereby the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) informed the petitioner that the appointment of all the Ad-hoc Registration Clerks were directed to be terminated by Inspector General (Registration), U.P., Allahabad vide its order dated 20th February, 1991. It was, therefore, directed that the petitioner's services' shall be terminated with immediate effect. It is this order which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court. At the time when the writ petition was presented, this Court was pleased to pass the following order dated 20th March, 1991 :
"Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted a month's time to file a counter affidavit. The petitioner will have two weeks thereafter to file a rejoinder affidavit. List the petition in the week commencing 5.5.1991.
Meanwhile, the operation of the order dated 18.3.1991, Annexure- 5 to the writ petition, shall remain stayed."
2. The writ petition came up for hearing before me on 6th March, 2002 under the heading 'cases likely to have become infructuous by efflux of time. The writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous on 6th March, 2002 and the interim order dated 20th March, 1991 was vacated. Thereafter an application being Civil Misc. Recall Application No. 79058 of 2002 for recall of the aforesaid order dated 6th March, 2002 was filed stating therein that since the matter regarding regularisation of the petitioner is pending before the respondents, the writ petition has not become infructuous. This statement has been made for the first time in the affidavit. However, considering the interest of justice the order dated 6th March, 2002 was recalled and the writ petition was restored to its original number. Another application being Civil Misc. Application No. 132238 of 2002 was filed with the prayer that the supplementary affidavit filed along with the application be accepted on record, whereby the petitioner brought on record the decision of the Apex Court reported in JT 1995(7) SC 545 : (1996) 1 UPLBEC 23 (SC), Khagesh Kumar and Ors. v. Inspector General of Registration and Ors., in which the Apex Court in the similar circumstances had issued the direction which are contained in Para 24 of the judgment which is as under:
"24. For the reasons aforementioned the impugned judgment of the High Court is upheld with the following directions:-
(1) The petitioners or other similarly placed persons who were employed as Registration Clerks on daily wage basis prior to October 1, 1986 shall be considered for regularisation under the provisions of Rule 4(l)(ii) and they have completed three years continuous service. The said period of three years service shall be computed by taking into account the actual period during which the employee had worked as Registration Clerk on daily wage basis. The period during which such an employee has performed the duties of Registration Clerk under Paragraph 101 of Manual shall be counter as part of service for the purpose of such regularisation.
(2) In the event of appointment or regular basis on the post of Registration Clerks, the petitioner or other similarly placed persons who had worked as Registration Clerks on daily wage basis may be given one opportunity of being considered for such appointment and they be given relaxation in the matter of age requirement prescribed for such appointment under the Rules.
(3) The Subordinate Service Selection Commission while making selection for regular appointment to the posts of Registration Clerks shall give weightage for their experience to the Registration Clerks who have worked on daily wage basis and shall frame suitable guidelines for that purpose.
(4) If any, of the petitioners or other similarly placed person was required to perform the duties of Registration Clerk as an Apprentice under Paragraph 101 of the Manual, he may submit a representation to the appropriate authority setting out the full particulars of such employment within three months and the concerned authority, after verifying the correctness of the said claim, shall pass the necessary order for the period he is found to have so worked on the post of Registration Clerk. The said payment shall be made within a period of three months from the date of submission of the representation."
3. The another decision which has been brought on record is reported in 1996 Supreme Court Cases (L & S) 1222 : (1996) 3 UPLBEC 1744 (SC), Inspector General of Registration, U.P. and Anr. v. Avdesh Kumar and Ors., wherein considering the directions issued by the Apex Court in Khagesh Kumar's case (supra), a direction has been issued to consider even such candidates who have become over age and were working on daily wage. The provisions of Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad-hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) (Third Amendment) Rules, 2001 were promulgated which amends the Rule 4 of the original Rule 4 of Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad-hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 which is reproduced below:
"1. Short title and commencement.-(1) These Rules may be called the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad-hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission)(Third Amendment) Rules, 2001.
(2) They shall come into force at once.
2. Amendment of Rule 4.-In the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad-hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 in Rule 4 for existing sub-Rule (1), the following sub-Rule shall be substituted namely :-
"(1) Any person who-
(i) was directly appointed on Ad-hoc basis on or before June 30, 1998 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad-hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission)(Third Amendment) Rules, 2001;
(ii) possessed requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment as the time of such Ad-hoc appointment; and
(iii) has completed or, as the case may be, after he has completed three years service shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy, as may be available, on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant Rules or orders."
4. It is not disputed that the petitioner continued in service after passing the impugned order. In view of the facts and circumstances and directions referred to above and in view of a recent order passed in Writ Petition No. 43211 of 2002, this writ petition is disposed off finally with the direction that the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation in accordance with Law and Rules as amended update and in view of the directions issued by the Apex Court. It is further directed that till the exercise of regularisation is completed, with regard to the petitioner, petitioner shall continue in service.
5. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed off finally.