JUDGMENT :

KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

1. Heard Shri Pankaj Upadhyay along with Shri Vipul Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Pooja Aarwal, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Class IV employee on Ad-hoc basis on 01.12.1999 in District Judgeship of Maharajganj. Reference to the select-cum-appointment list of year 1991 has been made. The said list shows that pursuant to the written examination dated 20.01.1991 followed by interview dated 11.03.1991, 46 candidates were declared as successful and were appointed in Ad-hoc capacity. The name of the petitioner finds mention at serial No. 35 of the said list with a remark of backward class against his name.

3. It is contended that the petitioner was issued a letter of appointment by the District Judge concerned on 12.04.1991, whereby he was appointed as Farrash on Ad-hoc basis on a fixed pay of Rs. 780/- per month w.e.f. 12.04.1991 with a recital that his appointment, being purely temporary in nature, is liable to be terminated any time without notice. Further case of the petitioner is that another order was issued by the District Judge, Maharajganj mentioning that the appointment of various persons including the petitioner would be treated as effective w.e.f. 01.05.1991.

4. It is contended that after about four years, the petitioner moved an application before the Registrar General of this Court on 28.03.1995 seeking regularization of his services. However, while no order was passed on the said application on the Administrative side, in the meantime, learned District Judge, Maharajganj, by an order dated 10.07.1998 terminated the services of the petitioners along with two other persons, while referring to an incident when water stood logged up into the rest room of Additional District Judge for the reason that Assistant Nazir, namely, Rajesh Yadav being on leave, another Assistant Nazir, namely, Kameshwar Thakur remained negligent and, therefore, Kameshwar Thakur was suspended. The said order dated 10.07.1998 is under challenge in the present writ petition along with another order dated 04.08.1998, whereby the petitioner was reappointed on the same post with a clear recital that his seniority would remain intact. The subsequent order has been challenged to the extent it is against the petitioner and it is contended that the only thing which goes against the petitioner in order dated 04.08.1998 is that he has been given fresh/reappointment.

5. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid two orders with a further prayer that services of the petitioner be regularized.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group D Posts Rules, 2001 (herein-after referred to as “Rules of 2001”) and while referring to Rule 4 of the said Rules, it has been argued that a daily wager directly appointed before 29.06.1991 and continuing in service on the date when the Rules of 2001 came into force, would be entitled for regularization his services. The submission is that in 2001, the petitioner was continuing in service at the strength of the interim order dated 30.11.1998 passed in the present writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, two persons, namely, Ravindra Nath Dubey and Matiram Yadav, whose names were shown at Serial Nos. 33 and 34 in the list of 1991, have been regularized and, therefore, the petitioner is being discriminated. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Sheo Narain Nagar and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2018 (13) SCC 432 and Rajnish Kumar Mishra and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2019 (17) SCC 648 and submits that the Apex Court, under identical circumstances, has granted relief to the concerned appellants before the Apex Court after dealing with the regularizati