Hon’ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.—This bunch of nearly 100 special appeals and writ petitions raises common questions of fact and law with regard to the right of regularization of persons, who were appointed as daily wage Registration Clerks in the Registration department of the State of U.P. The appointment of Registration Clerks is regulated under the U.P. Registration Manual, (Para 94-A and Para 95) (herein after referred to as the ‘Registration Manual’).

Introduction :

2. The litigation which commenced in the year 1991 spilled over two and a half decades and after several rounds of litigation came up before us in this bunch, categorized as ‘Registration Clerks Bunch’. The daily wage Registration Clerks who were appointed some time in the year 1983-84 for a period of three months in a financial year with the sanction of the Governor, for the purpose of disposal of arrears of copying work in the registration offices in the State of U.P., continued to work under the orders/directions of this Court.

3. First round of litigation commenced in the year 1991 on advertisement being made for regular appointment on the post of Registration Clerks in the district level Registration offices under the Stamp and Registration Department, State of U.P., and culminated with the pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Khagesh Kumar and others v. Inspector General of Registration and others, 1995 SCC Supl. (4) 182, decided on 27.9.1995. The matters before us are off-shoots of the aforesaid judgement.

4. This bunch of appeals and the writ petitions can be classified in three broad groups :

(a) intra Court appeals filed by daily wage Registration Clerks, whose claim for regularization had been rejected by the Inspector General of Registration State of U.P. by reasoned orders and the writ petitions filed against the same were dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgement and order dated November 27, 1998 (in total 120 writ petitions) and special appeals against similar orders of the Writ Courts, whereby the decision of the State authorities to the effect that the writ petitioners were not entitled for regularization has been upheld;

(b) intra Court appeals filed by the State of U.P. and the Inspector General of Registration against the judgement and order of the learned Single Judge dated May 11, 2004 (in total 79 writ petitions), whereby directions have been issued for regularization of daily wage Registration Clerks and the special appeals against the orders of the like nature passed by other Writ Courts;

(c) writ petition filed by certain daily wager Registration Clerks contending therein that their claim for regularization has not been considered in accordance with the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Khagesh Kumar (supra).

We have heard learned counsels for the parties.

History of Litigation :

5. Before adverting to the case set up by the parties, it would be worthwhile to narrate the history of litigation leading to the present controversy, in short:

The persons appointed as daily wage Registration Clerks in the registration department of the State of U.P. filed writ petitions claiming regularization. They also prayed for quashing of the advertisement calling for applications for regular appointment on the post of registration clerk with the prayer to allot them the work of registration clerk daily and not to interfere in their working. Some of the writ petitions were disposed of by the Single Judge benches with the direction to the Inspector General of Registration to consider the claim of the petitioners therein under the relevant rules for regularization. In some matters, interim orders were granted, on the strength of which,the petitioners continued to work in the registration departments at District level.

6. Special Appeals filed against the orders of the Single Judge referred to above alongwith the pending writ petitions before the Court at Allahabad and Lucknow bench were heard together in a b