Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Sri D.S.P. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Chandra Shekhar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondents were heard. Since pleadings are complete, as requested and agreed by learned counsels for parties, this Court proceed to decide this matter finally under the Rules of the Court.

2. Writ petition is directed against the order dated 26.6.2006 passed by respondent No. 1 and 17.11.2006 passed by respondent No. 2. Copy of the order dated 26.6.2006 is not on record. The order dated 17.11.2006 is Annexure 24 to writ petition and thereby the petitioner has been terminated since he could not be regularized under the provisions of U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointment on Group ‘C’ Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as “1998 Rules”).

3. The facts in brief, giving rise to present dispute, may be narrated as under.

4. The petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis to function as Ex Officio Stamp Vendor on account of promotion of one Sri Satyavrat Nigam as Deputy Cashier. The aforesaid order was issued by Treasurer, Jaunpur on 28.8.1987. The Government directed for termination of all daily wage employees and accordingly the petitioner was ceased to work vide Treasurer, Jaunpur’s order dated 6.1.1988 with effect from 8.1.1988. Again there was a leave vacancy for a period of 28 days on which District Magistrate engaged petitioner on daily wage basis as Assistant Cashier. The aforesaid order of District Magistrate was communicated by Treasurer, Jaunpur by his letter dated 24/26.12.1988. Petitioner however continued to function even after 28 days without any order of appointment or extension. By order dated 13.4.1989 he was transferred to Sub-Treasury, Kerakat, District Jaunpur in the same capacity i.e. Assistant Cashier (Daily wage basis).

5. Petitioner, claiming Regularisation, having worked for about three years, filed Writ Petition No. 10603 of 1992 which was disposed of on 15.1.1998 with the following order:

“The prayer of the petitioner is for Regularisation. In this connection he has made representation dated 29.5.1990 and he may make much other representation as is advised and the same may be decided within the months from production of a certified copy of the order before the authority concerned in accordance with law. Petition is disposed of.”

6. The District Magistrate, Jaunpur considered the claim of petitioner for regularisation in the light of U.P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as “1979 Rules”) and found that he did not qualify so as to be regularized under the aforesaid Rules, having failed to fulfil the requirement of Rule 4 thereof. Accordingly his claim for regularisation was rejected by order dated 31.3.1998 (Annexure 8 to writ petition).

7. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 31.3.1998 in Writ Petition No. 14121 of 1998 stating that he is a daily wage employee and, therefore, his claim ought to have been considered under 1998 Rules instead of 1979 Rules which were applicable to ad hoc employee and petitioner being a daily wage employee, he ought to have been considered under 1998 Rules. This Court vide order dated 20.9.2004 set aside order dated 31.3.1998 and directed the District Magistrate to consider petitioner’s claim for regularisation under Rules 1998.

8. The competent authority found vide order dated 21.7.2006 that petitioner did not satisfy the requirement of 1998 Rules also and accordingly terminated him under Rule 8 of 1998 Rules holding that he was not entitled for regularisation. Again the matter was taken to this Court in Writ Petition No. 40804 of 2006 contending that the order is wholly unreasoned and non speaking and has failed to show exact consideration whereupon the petitioner has been non suited. The argument favoured with