ORDER K. N. Singh, J. - The petitioner was selected for appointment to the post of Registration clerk in Jaunpur district in 1956. His name was included in the list of approved candidates for permanent appointment to the post of Registration clerk. In January 1962 certain vacancies in the post of permanent registration clerk occurred. The Inspector General of Registration by his order dated 31-12-1961 appointed the petitioner against one of these permanent post. The appointment was to take effect from 1-1-1962. The appointment order did not specify that the petitioner was appointed on probation, but as the subsequent events show, he was treated on probation. His work and conduct was not found satisfactory as a result of which he was not confirmed, instead he was treated on probation. He was transferred from Jaunpur to Varanasi and then to Azamgarh. While he was posted at Lalganj in the Sub-Registrar's Office, certain complaints were received against him. The Inspector General of Registration passed an order dated 16-4-1966 directing the petitioner to cease work. An enquiry was held against the petitioner in the allegations made against him. Sri K.M.L. Kapoor, Inspector of Stamps was deputed to hold enquiry against the petitioner. After completion of enquiry Sri Kapoor submitted his report to the Inspector General of Registration. On a perusal of the same the Inspector General of Registration passed an order on 7-4-1967 awarding an adverse entry to the petitioner for using insolent and undignified language in commenting on the District Registrars order. He reverted the petitioner from the post of Registration clerk and directed that he will be treated as an approved candidate at serial No. 1. He was directed to report himself for duty to the District Registrar, Jaunpur. 2. The petitioner reported for duty to the District Registrar at Jaunpur, but he was not allowed to join. A number of letters were exchanged between the District Registrar, Jaunpur and the Inspector General of Registration. The former took the stand that the petitioner was not entitled to join as an enlisted candidate at Jaunpur on the ground that on the petitioners appointment as Registration Clerk against a permanent vacancy his name automatically stood removed from the list of approved candidates, therefore, he could not be treated as an enlisted candidate. The former took the stand that the petitioner was not entitled to join as an enlisted candidate at Jaunpur on the ground that on the petitioners appointment as Registration Clerk against a permanent vacancy his name automatically stood removed from the list of approved candidates, therefore, he could not be treated as an enlisted candidate. Inspector General of Registration was of the opinion that since the petitioner has not been made permanent on the post of Registration Clerk he continued to be on probation and on the complaints received against him he was by way of punishment directed to be treated as an enlisted candidate. Unfortunately both the authorities could not reconcile and the petitioner was not allowed to join his duties even though the Head of the Department had issued a specific order permitting him to join his duties at Jaunpur. 3. Since the petitioner was not allowed to join his duties and the order of the Inspector General of Registration was not given effect to by the District Registrar, Jaunpur, he filed a civil suit before the Civil Court at Jaunpur claiming relief for the cancellation of the two orders of the Inspector General of Registration one dated 16-4-1966 directing the petitioner to cease work and the order dated 7-4-1967 reverting the petitioner to the list of approved candidates. The suit was contested by the State of U.P. as well as by the Inspector General of Registration. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the findings that none of the two orders dated 16-4-1966 and 7-4-1967 were orders of punishment. It was further held that none of the petitioner's right to continue in service had been jeopardised and the Inspector General of Registration by his order dated 7-4-1967 had issued direction permitting the petitioner to join duty at Jaunpur. The petitioner filed appeal against the trial Court judgment and decree. The appellate Court viz., the District Judge upheld the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the petitioners appeal by his order dated 29-7-1971. The petitioner thereafter reported for duty on 5-8-1971 at the office of District Registrar, Jaunpur. The District Registrar of Jaunpur again sought guidance from the Inspector General of Registration under his letter dated 12-8-1971 but no orders were issued and the matter appears was referred to the State Government by the Inspector General of Registration. The petitioner thereafter reported for duty on 5-8-1971 at the office of District Registrar, Jaunpur. The District Registrar of Jaunpur again sought guidance from the Inspector General of Registration under his letter dated 12-8-1971 but no orders were issued and the matter appears was referred to the State Government by the Inspector General of Registration. The State Government by its letter dated 23-8-1973 directed the Inspector General of Registration not to treat the petitioner as an approved candidate and gave further direction that in case the petitioner wanted appointment, written undertaking be taken from him that he would not claim any benefit of his past service. The Government further directed that the petitioner could be re-employed only, on receipt of such an undertaking. In compliance to the direction issued by the State Government the petitioner gave the requisite undertaking and appeared before the District Registrar Jaunpur to join duty. But even thereafter the District Registrar, Jaunpur, by his order dated 25-1-1974 did not permit the petitioner to join his duty. Aggrieved the petitioner approached this Court by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the State Government date 23-8-1973 and the order of the District Registrar, Jaunpur, dated 25-1-1974. 4. Rules 94-A and 97 as contained in the Registration Manual make provision for appointment of Registration clerk. Rule 94-A lays down that each District Registrar shall maintain a list of approved candidates for the post of registration clerk. Rule 97 lays down qualifications for enlistment of a candidate. Clause (8) of Rule 97 lays down that permanent appointment to the post of registration clerk shall be made from amongst the enlisted candidates appointed in a substantive vacancy as a registration clerk is required to remain on probation for at least 6 months. The rule does not make any provision that on the appointment of an approved candidate against a permanent vacancy his name shall be deleted from the list of approved candidates. In the absence of any such provision an approved candidate even if appointed against a substantive vacancy of registration clerk cannot be de-enlisted, his name would continue to remain in the list of approved candidates until he is confirmed or removed from service. Under clause (5) of Rule 97 names of candidates once brought on the list cannot be removed by the District Registrar except on the grounds mentioned therein. Under clause (5) of Rule 97 names of candidates once brought on the list cannot be removed by the District Registrar except on the grounds mentioned therein. The name of an approved candidate can be removed from the list if the candidate has already attained the age of 25 years and has not held officiating or temporary vacancies for a total period of at least 6 months or that he has attained the age of 30 years when the revision of the list takes place. Further if the approved candidate refuses to join as registration clerk in an officiating or temporary vacancy on two successive occasions his name may be removed. Lastly if the approved candidate is found unfit for appointment on account of misconduct or for some other valid reasons his name may be removed from the list but before removal of his name, opportunity of explanation, hearing and showing cause is required to be given to such a candidate. Clause (5) of Rule 97 therefore contemplates that once the name of a candidate is brought on the list his name cannot be removed except in the circumstances enumerated therein. Further if the approved candidate is permanently absorbed in a substantive vacancy of registration clerk his name shall cease to remain on the list. There is no other provision in the rules permitting deletion of the name of an approved candidate from the list. 5. In the instant case the petitioner's name was included in the list of approved candidate. It is admitted that he had been officiating continuously on the post of registration clerk, admittedly he was appointed against a substantive vacancy on the post of registration clerk on probation. On the expiry of probation he was not confirmed with the result he continued to remain on probation. Charges were framed against him and the punishing authority viz., the Inspector General of Registration by his order dated 7-4-1967 directed that the petitioner be treated as an approved candidate at serial No. 1 in the district Jaunpur. There was no order for the removal of petitioners name from the list. It is further admitted that the petitioner was enlisted in the District Registrars Office at Jaunpur. After the issue of the order dated 7-4-1967, he was the senior-most amongst the approved candidates in Jaunpur. There was no order for the removal of petitioners name from the list. It is further admitted that the petitioner was enlisted in the District Registrars Office at Jaunpur. After the issue of the order dated 7-4-1967, he was the senior-most amongst the approved candidates in Jaunpur. Since the petitioner was neither confirmed nor absorbed on the permanent post of registration clerk his name should have been shown in the list of approved candidates. The District Registrar wrongly excluded his name from the list of approved candidates at the stage when the petitioner was appointed on probation in a permanent vacancy. The stand taken by the District Registrar that the petitioner was not entitled to be included in the list of approved candidate at Jaunpur was unjustified. The Inspector General of Registration is the appointing authority. It was within his jurisdiction to direct that the petitioner shall be treated as an approved candidate and that he shall not be allowed to work in a permanent vacancy on the post of registration clerk. Under the rules it was not open to the District Registrar to question the authority of the Inspector General of Registration. Under Rule 94-A the District Registrar is empowered to take disciplinary proceedings against the registration clerk but appeal against the order of the District Registrar lies to the Inspector General of Registration. The Inspector General of Registration is the appellate Authority and his orders are binding on the District Registrar. In my opinion the District Registrar, Jaunpur, acted illegally in not permitting the petitioner to join his duties. The order of the District Registrar dated 25-1-1974 is liable to be quashed. 6. Learned Standing Counsel urged that since the Inspector General of Registration by his order dated 16-4-1966 directed the petitioner to cease work his name stood removed from the list of approved candidates, therefore the petitioner could not be treated as an approved candidate merely because the Inspector General of Registration issued direction to that effect. I find no substance in this contention. As already noted the name of an approved candidate could not be removed from the list unless he is given opportunity of showing cause. The order of the Inspector General of Registration dated 16-4-1966 was merely in the nature of an order of suspension pending enquiry. This is clear from the chain of events which followed thereafter. As already noted the name of an approved candidate could not be removed from the list unless he is given opportunity of showing cause. The order of the Inspector General of Registration dated 16-4-1966 was merely in the nature of an order of suspension pending enquiry. This is clear from the chain of events which followed thereafter. It is admitted that after the issue of the order dated 16-4-1966, the Inspector General of Registration appointed K. N. Kapoor as enquiry officer. On completion of enquiry Sri Kapoor submitted his report and it was thereafter that the Inspector General of Registration passed his orders on 7-4-1967 awarding an adverse entry to the petitioner and directing that he be treated as an approved candidate at serial No. 1 in the District Registrar s office at Jaunpur. It is not disputed that the order dated 16-4-1966 was not passed after the issue of show cause notice to the petitioner. Moreover, the order directed that the petitioner should cease work which means that he is stopped from performing duties of a registration clerk. The order did not remove the petitioner from service nor it directed for the removal of the petitioners name from the list of approved candidates. In the circumstances the interpretation given by the District Registrar to the order of the Inspector General of Registration dated 16-4-1966 was misconceived. The petitioner continued in service although he was not allowed to work which means that he was under suspension. The order directing the petitioner to stop work or placing him under suspension does not amount to his removal from service. The petitioner was admittedly enlisted at the District Registrars Office, Jaunpur. His name could not be removed from the list of approved candidates unless the conditions precedent for removal were complied with. As already noted in the instant case the petitioners name could not be legally removed from the list of approved candidates. The District Registrar committed error in taking stand that the petitioners name stood automatically removed from the list on the issue of the order of the Inspector General of Registration dated 16-4-1966. 7. The respondents contention that on the issue of the order of the Inspector General of Registration dated 16-4-1966 the petitioners name stood automatically removed from the list of approved candidates is barred by principles of res judicata. 7. The respondents contention that on the issue of the order of the Inspector General of Registration dated 16-4-1966 the petitioners name stood automatically removed from the list of approved candidates is barred by principles of res judicata. As already noted the petitioner had filed a civil suit where he contended that the order dated 16-4-1966 was an order of termination. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Inspector General of Registration as well as on behalf of the defendant which included the State of Uttar Pradesh Inspector General of Registration District Registrar, Azamgarh and the District Registrar, Jaunpur, it was asserted that the order of the Inspector General of Registration dated 16-4-1966 directed the petitioner to cease work and on ceasing to act the petitioner was reverted back to his parent district Jaunpur where he was originally listed, his name had not been included in the list by mistake under the impression that on his appointment on probation his name had to be removed. There was no question of any re-enlistment of the petitioner. A copy of the written statement filed by the defendant in the suit has been filed as Annexure-19 to the petition. In view of the categorical statement made on behalf of the respondents before the Civil Court it is not open to the respondents in the present proceedings to take a different stand or to contend that the petitioner's services stood terminated by the order of the Inspector General, Registration dated 16-4-1966. The contention is barred by principles of res judicata. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the validity of the order of the State Government dated 23-8-1963 and urged that the directions contained in the order of the State Government were arbitrary. As already noted there was a lengthy correspondence between the District Registrar, Jaunpur and the Inspector General of Registration in the petitioners matter. The District Registrar was not permitting the petitioner to join his duties while the Inspector General of Registration was insisting that his order dated 7-4-1967 should be given effect and the petitioner be allowed to join his duty at Jaunpur as an approved candidate. The matter appears to have been brought to the notice of the State Government by tire Inspector General of Registration. The matter appears to have been brought to the notice of the State Government by tire Inspector General of Registration. The Stale Government thereupon issued the impugned order dated 23-8-1973 directing that the petitioner should not be treated as an approved candidate because his services had been terminated earlier. The order further stated that if the petitioner wanted to get his name included in the list of approved candidates, he would be required to go through the necessary formalities and that other approved candidates will be senior to him. The petitioner was further directed to submit an application for his re-enlistment with a written undertaking that he will not claim benefit of his past services. I have already noted that in the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants which included the State Government, the State Government took a stand that after the issue of the order of the Inspector General of Registration dated 7-4-1967, the petitioner was entitled to be treated as an approved candidate at Jaunpur and that his name had not been removed from the list of approved candidates. It was further admitted in the written statement that there was no question of petitioners re-enlistment and that his name would continue on the list of approved candidates at Jaunpur. In view of this plea of the defendants, Civil Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to any protection of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. In view of these facts it was not open to the State Government to take a different stand later on, and to direct that the petitioner cannot be treated as an approved candidate or that he should apply again for re-enlistment. It was not open to the State Government to take a different stand and to issue directions as contained in its order dated 23-8-1973. The order is clearly illegal and must be quashed. 9. In view of the above discussion I hold that the petitioner is entitled to continue as an approved candidate at the District Registrar's Office, Jaunpur, as directed by the Inspector General of Registration vide his order dated 7-4-1967. The District Registrar acted illegally in refusing to allow the petitioner to join his duties. I further hold that the State Government acted illegally in issuing the directions as contained in its order dated 23-8-1973. 10. The District Registrar acted illegally in refusing to allow the petitioner to join his duties. I further hold that the State Government acted illegally in issuing the directions as contained in its order dated 23-8-1973. 10. In the result the petition is allowed and the order of the State Government dated 23-8-1973 and the order of the District Registrar, Jaunpur dated 25-1-1974 are quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as an approved candidate in the office of the District Registrar, Jaunpur. The petitioner is entitled to his costs.