Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suresh Garg & Ors vs State (Pan. Raj.) & Anr on 27 March, 2012
Author: Dinesh Maheshwari
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari
SBCWP No.2508/2012.
Suresh Garg & Ors.
Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Anr.
[1]
23
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2508/2012.
Suresh Garg & Ors.
Vs
State of Rajasthan & Anr.
DATE OF ORDER :: 27th March 2012.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr. A.S. Rathore ]
Ms. Pintu Pareek ], for the petitioners.
<><>
BY THE COURT:
The petitioners, said to be possessing diploma in Civil Engineering and working as Junior Technical Assistant in the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme ('NREGS') at Panchayat Samiti level after having been selected thereto in the year 2009, have filed this writ petition seeking to question the process of recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) as taken up by the State Government in its Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department under the advertisement dated 04.01.2012 (Annex.P/6).
The case pleaded and the grievance as suggested by the petitioners in this writ petition could be briefly taken note of in the following: According to the petitioners they are discharging their duties as Junior Technical Assistant while working on contract basis; and their work has been found satisfactory. It is submitted that they are performing the same duties while working on the post of Junior Technical Assistant SBCWP No.2508/2012.
Suresh Garg & Ors.
Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
[2]on contract basis as are discharged by the regularly selected Junior/Assistant Engineers. The petitioners have referred to the advertisement dated 04.01.2012 whereby applications have been invited for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) while specifying that 60 posts are available for the Degree Holders and 61 for the Diploma Holders. The petitioners submit that being the Diploma Holders in Civil Engineering and having the experience of working in the respondent-department on contract basis, they have applied in response to the advertisement aforesaid and have appeared in the competitive examination.
The claim of the petitioners is that the respondents should have either given a preference to them and the alike candidates in the said advertisement or should have absorbed them by regularizing for they are already discharging the same duties as are being discharged by the regularly selected Junior Engineers. It is submitted that the State Government has, from time to time, taken the decision for regularization in relation to the persons who have served on contract or temporary basis like that in the case of para-teachers and the same treatment ought to be extended to the petitioners.
The learned counsel for the petitioners refers to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Bihar Rajya Sahkarita Prabandhak Seva SBCWP No.2508/2012.
Suresh Garg & Ors.
Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
[3]Sangh, Patna & Ors.:JT 1998 SC 600 and submits that similar to the treatment allowed to the incumbents therein, the petitioners should either be absorbed or suitable number of posts be set apart for them.
After having considered the matter in its totality, this Court is clearly of opinion that this writ petition remains totally bereft of substance and does not merit admission.
The petitioners are admittedly working on contract basis under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme since the year 2009. The respondents have taken up the process for regular recruitment under the Rajasthan Rural Development and Panchayati Raj State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1998 as amended in the year 2011 for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) (Degree Holder/Diploma Holder). Merely for having worked in NAREGS on contract basis, the petitioners do not get a right of questioning the regular recruitment under the relevant service rules. Similarly, the claim of the petitioners of being given preference in this recruitment does not appear having any basis in any of the rules. The petitioners, who have allegedly applied under the advertisement in question are, of course, free to compete if eligible therefor but there appears absolutely no right existing in the petitioners wherefor they could seek absorption or regularization or even the so called preference.
SBCWP No.2508/2012.
Suresh Garg & Ors.
Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
[4]The reference to decision in the case of Bihar Rajya Sahkarita Prabandhak Seva Sangh (supra) does not appear apposite. Therein, the State Government itself agreed to continue with and to absorb the persons, who had been working since 1973 as Paid Managers in various Co-operative Societies. The directions for setting apart of a reasonable number of posts for such persons were also made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the peculiar facts of the case, as observed. In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has not laid down that in every case of direct recruitment, any other person working on contract basis on the same nature work ought to be absorbed or given a preference. Similarly, any one-time measure for any particular class of persons in the peculiar fact situation does not invest the petitioners with a right to claim absorption or regularization. Such a claim by the petitioners remains hollow and baseless; and is required to be rejected with reference to the dictum of the Hon'ble Constitutional Bench in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi : (2006) 4 SCC 1.
The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
cpgoyal/-