Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/1644/2019 on 30 September, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
` WPSS No. 1644 of 2019
With
WPSS No. 1642 of 2019
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Standing Counsel for the State.
3. Since, common question of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, hence, they are being taken up together and decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of WPSS No. 1644 of 2019 are taken into consideration.
4. According to the petitioner, he was appointed on daily wages as workshop instructor in Government Rural Polytechnic in Takula, District Almora in the year 2001 and he is thereafter serving continuously as Workshop Instructor, though in different Government Polytechnics.
5. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to continue with his engagement on the post of Workshop Instructor in Government Rural Polytechnic Takula without any interruption by implementing the decision taken by the Government vide G.O. dated 12.02.2018 to continue the teachers appointed on contractual basis till a regularly selected candidate joins.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to pay regular salary to the Petitioner at par to the similarly placed instructor on the principle of equal pay for equal work till he is given regular status."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court in WPSS No. 3168 of 2017 has issued certain directions to the Director, Technical Education vide order dated 29.12.2023, therefore, the present writ petition be also decided in terms of the order passed by the said writ petition.
7. Learned State Counsel submits that the post against which petitioner was engaged as daily wager, has been filled by regular selection and petitioner is not having the requisite qualification as per the applicable Rules, therefore, he is not eligible for regular appointment.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, disputes both these submissions made by learned State Counsel and he submits that the vacancies against which petitioner was appointed is still available and further that petitioner is fully qualified for appointment as Workshop Instructor even as per the prevailing rules.
9. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Director, Technical Education to prepare a list of employees, who fulfil all conditions of eligibility for regularization against available posts and to consider their claim for regularization as per law, within six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 30.09.2024 Ujjwal