JUDGMENT S. C. AGRAWAL, J. - C.A. No. 9135 of 1995 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant was initially appointed as Registration Clerk on daily-wage basis by the District Registrar, District Jhansi, by order dated 27-9-1990. While the appellant was working as Registration Clerk, the District Registrar, District Jhansi, issued a notice/advertisement for filling up six posts of Registration Clerks on regular basis. Out of six posts five posts were to be filled up from and amongst the general candidates and the sixth post was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. The District Registrar, District Jhansi constituted a Selection Committee for the said appointment. The appellant appeared before the said Selection Committee on 24-2-1991 and was selected. He was appointed on the post of Registration Clerk on the basis of said selection and he joined as Registration Clerk on 25-2-1991, but by order dated 15-6-1991 his services were terminated. The appellant filed a writ petition (Writ Petition No. 17883 of 1991) in the Allahabad High Court which was heard along with special appeals and writ petitions of other Registration Clerks employed on daily-wage basis and the same was dismissed by common judgment and order dated 8-2-1995. 3. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that his case differs from other cases dealt with by the High Court inasmuch as he had been selected for regular appointment by a duly constituted Selection Committee in accordance with the rules and the High Court has not considered this aspect of the matter. In the counter-affidavit that has been filed on behalf of the respondents before this Court, it has not been disputed that the Selection Committee was duly constituted by the District Registrar, District Jhansi on 24-2-1991 but it is asserted that while doing so the District Registrar, District Jhansi, did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Rule 22 of the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (District Recruitment) Rules, 1975 which had been replaced by the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (District Recruitment) Rules, 1985 as amended up to date and thus there was defect in the procedure of the said selection and the selection was void. This question has not been gone into by the High Court while dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. It is a question which should have been considered by the High Court before dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. 4. This question has not been gone into by the High Court while dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. It is a question which should have been considered by the High Court before dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. 4. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the judgment and order of the High Court dated 8-2-1995 insofar as it relates to dismissal of Writ Petition No. 17883 of 1991 is set aside and the said writ petition is remitted to the High Court to dispose of the same on merits. No costs. C.A. No. 9136 of 1995 5. Leave granted. 6. The appellants in this appeal were employed as Registration Clerks on daily-wage basis in the office of Sub-Registrar, District Jhansi on various periods, during the years 1990 and 1991. The case of the appellants is that in response to the notice inviting applications for appointment on the post of Registration Clerks, the appellants had submitted their applications and they were required to appear before the Selection Committee constituted under relevant rules on 24-2-1991. Their claim is that other persons whose names were sponsored by the Employment Exchange were also called and that the appellants were selected by the Selection Committee and on the basis of the said selection, they were appointed as Registration Clerks by the District Registrar by order dated 18-3-1991. It is claimed that the said appointment of the appellants was approved by the Inspector General of Registration on 15-4-1991. Subsequently by order dated 27-5-1991 the Inspector General of Registration issued an order directing the District Registrar to terminate the services of Registration Clerks employed on daily-wage basis with immediate effect. In pursuance of the said directions, the District Registrar, District Jhansi, issued orders terminating the services of the appellants with effect from 27-5-1991 by treating them a Registration Clerks employed on daily-wage basis. The case of the appellants is that they were appointed on regular basis after being duly selected in accordance with the rules. They filed a writ petition (Writ Petition No. 17785 of 1991) in the Allahabad High Court challenging the order terminating their services. The said writ petition was heard along with other matters of the Registration Clerks who had been appointed on daily-wage basis and was disposed of by common order dated 8-2-1995. 7. They filed a writ petition (Writ Petition No. 17785 of 1991) in the Allahabad High Court challenging the order terminating their services. The said writ petition was heard along with other matters of the Registration Clerks who had been appointed on daily-wage basis and was disposed of by common order dated 8-2-1995. 7. The grievance of the appellants is that their case stands on a different footing inasmuch as they were not employed as Registration Clerk on daily-wage basis but had been duly selected by the Selection Committee constituted under the rules and they had been appointed on regular basis by the District Registrar, District Jhansi, and the said appointment had also been approved by the Inspector General of Registration. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in the writ petition before the High Court the factual averments made by the petitioners in the writ petition were not disputed. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in reply to special leave petition before this Court, it has, however, been stated that the appointment of the appellants had been made without complying with the provisions of Rule 22 of the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (District Recruitment) Rules, 1985 inasmuch as the applications were accepted directly without issuing an advertisement in the daily newspaper as required under the provisions of the said rule. It has been submitted that as a result of the said defect the selection was defective ab initio. This question has not been examined by the High Court and the High Court has dismissed the writ petition without going into the said question. This is a matter which requires consideration by the High Court. 8. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the judgment and order of the High Court dated 8-2-1995 insofar as it relates to Writ Petition No. 17785 of 1991 is set aside and the said writ petition is remitted to the High Court for consideration on merits. No costs.