Honble YADAV, J. — The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking a relief to quash the Advertisement dated 12.1.1990 Annx.7 to the writ petitioner inviting the applications for two posts of Lower Division Clerk ignoring the claim of the petitioners regularisation in pursuance of Annex. 6 to the writ Petition wherein the Petitioner along with one Shri Hari Ratan Ojha were found to be senior most eligible persons having requisite qualification in the department and were further found to be entitled to be regularised and absorbed against two existing vacant posts of Lower Division Clerk in the department The respondents instead of absorbing and regularising the petitioner as well as Shri Hai Ratan Ojha in pursuance of Annx.6 to the writ petition against the aforesaid two existing vacancies of Lower Division Clerk advertised the posts vide Annx.7 to the writ petition. (2). The petitioner is seeking the aforesaid relief for quashing the Notification dated 12.1.90 Annx.7 to the writ petition and for regularisation of his services against the vacant existing posts of Lower Division Clerk on the ground, inter alia, that the petitioner was appointed by the respondent in the year 1971 on work-charged basis and thereafter his services were retrenched. Against the retrenchment order passed by them on the application of the petitioner a reference was made by the respondents to the Industrial Tribunal on 3.12.75. The Industrial Tribunal set aside the retrenchment order passed against the petitioner as well as against Shri Hari Ratan Ojha and directed the respondents to reinstate them in service with full back wages. (3). Against the aforesaid judgment of the Industrial Tribunal, the respondents had filed S.B.Civil Misc. Writ Petition before this Court, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 3.1.83 and as such, the judgment passed by the Industrial Tribunal was upheld. Against the judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding the judgment passed by the Industrial Tribunal, the respondents filed D.B Civil Special Appeal before this Court,which was dismissed on 14.1.84 and judgment passed by the learned Single Judge was upheld. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid judgments passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of this Court had attained finality. (4). According to the petitioner, the aforesaid judgments passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of this Court had attained finality. (4). It is further alleged in Paragraph 4 of the writ petition that the petitioner is working in the office of the respondents for the last 19 years on the date of filing of the writ petition, now 23 years on the date of decision but his services have not been regularised as yet. Although they are being paid regular Pay Scale of Lower Division Clerk but the petitioner is treated as Munshi due to non-availability of the post of Lower Division Clerk in the department. It is also alleged that vide Annx.7 dated 12.1.90, after occurrence of two permanent vacancies of Lower Division Clerk, these posts were advertised inviting applications ignoring the claim of the petitioners regularisation. (5). After service of notices, respondents No. 1 and 2 were given time by this Court for filing reply to the writ petition but reasons best known to the respondents, they did not file any reply to the writ petition and as such, the averments made in the writ petition remained unrebulted. (6). I have heard Mr. G.K.Vyas, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr Anil Kumar Singh, learned Counsel , for Respondents and critically gone through the material available on record. (7). The main thrust of argument of Mr.G.K.Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner is that similarly circumstanced Shri Hari Ratan Ojha although junior to the petitioner has filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 548 of 1990 known as Hari Ratan Ojha v. Urban Improvement Trust & another challenging the impugned Advertisement/Notification dated 12.1.90 Annx.7 to the writ petition verbatim on the same ground, on which the instant writ petition has been challenged by the petitioner. It is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the earlier writ petition No. 548/90 Hari Ratan Ojha v. Urban Improvement Trust & another, the respondents had filed a detail reply justifying the Advertisement/Notification dated 12.1.90 Annx.7 to the writ petition but the reply filed by the respondents was negatived by the learned Single Judge and it was held in that case, that Shri Hari Ratan Ojha is entitled to be absorbed as Lower Division Clerk in the regular Pay Scale. It is also brought to my notice that after decision of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 548/90 on 27.5.90 holding the similarly circumstanced Shri Hari Ratan Ojha entitled to be absorbed as Lower Division Clerk in the regular Pay Scale, the respondents had filed S.B. civil Special Appeal No.436/92 known as Chairman, U.I.T. & another v. Hari Ratan Ojha. The aforesaid Special Appeal was dismissed by a speaking judgment by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Honble Shri M.C. Jain and Honble Shri Y.R. Meena, JJ. on 24.9.1992. It is also brought to my notice that in pursuance of the judgment given in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 548/90 decided by the learned Single Judge on 27.5.92 and after dismissal of the Special Appeal No.436/92 by the aforesaid Division Bench, the respondents have already regularised the services of the similarly circumstanced Shri Hari Ratan Ojha in the regular Pay Scale. (8). In view of the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, the original record of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 548/90 as well as the original record of D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.436/92 have been summoned today. (9). Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents, is not controverting the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In reply to the aforesaid argument, learned counsel , for Respondents placed reliance on a decision rerfdered by another Division Beach of this Court in the case of Nyas Employees Union, Jodhpur. V. State of Rajasthan(l). (10). According to Mr. A.K. Singh, learned counsel , for Respondents there is a conflict in the decision rendered by the Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.436/92 by means of which, the regularisation of services of similarly circumstanced Shri Hari Ratan Ojha was upheld while according to respondents No.l to 3 in the latter judgment of Nyas Employees Union(Supra), the aforesaid view has not been accepted. (11). (11). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar and critically gone through the material available on record of the instant writ petition as well as the material and judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge on 27.5.92 in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.548/90 directing the respondents to regularise the services of similarly circumstanced incumbent Shri Hari Ratan Ojha against one existing vacancy of Lower Division Clerk and has also gone through the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court on 24.9.92 in D.B.Civil Special Appeal no.436/92 upholding the judgment given by the learned Single Judge on 27.5.92 by a speaking order. (12). A close scrutiny of the present writ petition No.893/90 with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 548/90 reveals that both the petitions have been filed challenging the impugned Notification Annx.7 to the writ petition verbatim on the same ground as has been challenged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition. It is undisputed before me that the respondents have submitted to the order passed by the Division Bench in D.B.Civil Special Appeal. No.436/92 decided on 24.9.92 Thus, in the similar facts and circumstances, Annx.7 to the writ petition has been quashed by the learned Single Judge on 27.5.92 directing the. respondents to regularise the services of Shri Hari Ratan Ojha against one existing vacant post of Lower Division Clerk and the said judgment of the learned Single Judge has been upheld by the Division Bench on 24.9.92 which has now attained finality. It is also not disputed before me that in pursuance of the judgment rendered by the learned Single judge as well as Division Bench of this Court, the respondents have regularised the services of Shri Hari Ratan Ojha similarly circumstanced with the petitioner though junior to him shown in Annx.6 to the writ petition. (13). A close scrutiny of Anxx.6 to the writ petition, which was also filed in the earlier writ petition as Annx.6 reveals that the petitioner as well as Shri Hari Ratan Ojha, both were senior most employees in the respondentdeapartment, who psssessed the reqauisite qualification and they were found to be entitled to be absorded and regularised against the existing two vacancies of Lower Division Clerk. Instead of regularising the services of the petitioner as well as Shri Hari Ratan Ojha two vacant posts of Lower Division Clerk were advertised vide Annx.7 to the writ petition, which was also marked as Annx.7 in the earlier writ petition. (14). Learned counsel , for Respondents has not disputed before me the fact that after decisions of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench of this Court, the services of Shri Hari Ratan Ojha were regularised against one existing vacancy to Lower Division Clerk and his reply filed in the aforesaid writ petition was negatived by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, in my humble opinion, if the respondents after decision of the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.548/90 and after decision of D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.436/92, has extended the benefit of regularisation against one existing vacancy of Lower Division Clerk to Shri Hari Ratan Ojha similarly circumstanced to the petitioner though junior to him according to Annx.6 to the writ petition, which was prepared in the office of the respondents, themselves. In such a situation, it would amount to hostile discrimination if the same benefit of regularisation is denied to the petitioner who is similarly circumstanced with Shri Hari Ratan Ojha though senior to him. In fact, denial of the same benefit to the petitioner would. amount to travesty of justice. (15). Nothing has been brought to my notice by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents as to how there is a conflict in the decision rendered by the Division Bench in D.B.Civil sepecial Appeal No. 436/92 and subsequent decision rendered by another Division Bench in Nyas Employees Unions case (supra). However, in my opinion, there is no inconsistency or conflict between the two decisions rendered by this court. A portion of paragraph 7 of the judgment rendered by another Division Bench in Nyas Employees Unions case (Supra), is reproduced below : — "........ No hard and fast rule has been laid down by the Honble Supreme Court or by this Court and in some cases the courts have given a direction for regularisation looking to the exigencies of the situation and in some cases courts have declined to grant any direction for regularisation expressing a mere sympathy for such unfortunate lot." (16). No hard and fast rule has been laid down by the Honble Supreme Court or by this Court and in some cases the courts have given a direction for regularisation looking to the exigencies of the situation and in some cases courts have declined to grant any direction for regularisation expressing a mere sympathy for such unfortunate lot." (16). A careful perusal of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Nyas Employees Unions case (supra) throws a flood of light that, in that case, the Division Bench consisting of Honble Shri A.K. Mathur and Honble Shri R.P.Saxena, JJ. after taking into account a catena of judgments rendered by the Apex Court ruled that ho hard and fast rule has been laid down by the Honble Supreme Court or by this court and in some cases, the courts have given a direction for regularisation looking to the exigencies of the situation and in some cases courts have declined to grant any direction for regularisation expressing a mere sympathy for such unfortunate lot. The Division Bench further held that all the cases dealt with by the Apex Court on the subject do not lay down the law nor does it lay down a ratio but a direction looking to the facts of each case warranting a human approach by the authorities concerned. (17). After laying down the aforesaid ratio decidendi as referred in paragraph 7 the learned Judges comprising Division Bench in case of Nyas Employees Union (Supra) referred catena of judgments rendered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in support of the ratio decidendi laid down by them in paragraph 7 of their decision. (18). (17). After laying down the aforesaid ratio decidendi as referred in paragraph 7 the learned Judges comprising Division Bench in case of Nyas Employees Union (Supra) referred catena of judgments rendered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in support of the ratio decidendi laid down by them in paragraph 7 of their decision. (18). In my humble opinion, even in accordance with the latest judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Nyas Employees Unions case(Supra) relied upon by the learned counsel , for Respondents looking to the exigencies of the situation, learned Single Judge can always issue a direction for regularisation of service and if such direction is issued by the learned Single Judge in S.B.Civil Writ petition No. 548/90 vide judgment dated 27.5,92 directing the respondents to regularise the services of Shri Hari Ratan Ojha and the said judgment if upheld by the Division Bench of this Court on 24.9.92, the respondents have no justification to argue that the said judgment of the Division Bench rendered on 24.9.92 is inconflict with another Division Bench decision, especially when, they have submitted to the order passed by the Division Bench in D.B.Civil Special Appeal No. 436/92. Since the respondents had submitted to the judgment passed by the Division Bench on 24.9.92 and the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in D.B.Civil Special Appeal No. 436/92 had attained finality, therefore, the respondents had no justification whatsoever to deny the regularisation of service to the petitioner who is similarly circumstanced with Shri Hari Ratan Ojha though senior to him. The argument advanced by the learned counsel , for Respondents to the effect that there is a conflict in the decision rendered by the Division Bench on 24.9.92 in D.B.Civil Special. Appeal No.436/92 to the subsequent Division Bench decision given in Nyas Employees Unions case (supra) is devoid of merit, therefore, hereby repelled. (19). As a result of the afore-mentioned discussion, Annx.7 to the writ petition is hereby quashed and the instant writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner forthwith who possessed the requisite qualification for appointment as Lower Division Clerk, against existing one vacancy of Lower Division Clerk on the same footing as they had already regularised the services of Shri Hari Ratan Ojha similarly circumstanced with the petitioner though junior to him. (20). (20). Both the parties are directed to bear their own costs as the respondents have not filed any reply to the writ petition controverting the allegations made in the writ petition.