Chattisgarh High Court
Darbar Singh Porte & Another vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Another on 14 December, 2009
HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION S NO 425 OF 2009
Darbar Singh Porte & Another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh & Another
...Respondents
! Shri Y Kailash Rao counsel for the petitioner ^ Shri P K Bhaduri Panel Lawyer for the State CORAM: Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J Dated: 14/12/2009 : Judgement ORDER ORAL Passed on this 14th day of December 2009 Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finally.
2. By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondent-authorities to consider the case of the petitioners regarding regularization of the services of the petitioners within a period of 30 days.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were working in the respondent department on contract basis as daily wagers since 1997 without any break till 2002 and thereafter they were again re-appointed in the year 2005, but till date their services have not been regularized in spite of the fact that the names of petitioners were taken from the concerned employment exchange. Even the State Government has also by its letter dated 5-3-2008 directed all the departments to regularize the services of daily wagers, even then also no action has been taken by the respondent authorities to regularize the services of the petitioners. Thus, this petition.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioners were not appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.
6. It is evident that the petitioners were not appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment, as without any advertisement or examination or interview, the appointments were made. The appointment of the petitioners was purely on temporary basis on daily wages.
7. As far as the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the names of the petitioners for appointment on daily wages were taken from the employment exchange is concerned, the same is noticed to be rejected, as while making appointments of the petitioners, the recruitment rules were not followed. Even there was no advertisement to invite the suitable candidates to participate in the selection process. How and in what manner the names of the petitioners were called from the employment exchange has also not been disclosed. (See State of Punjab and Others v. Surjit Singh and Others1).
8. Even if the names of the petitioners were called from the employment exchange, this does not suffice the requirement of provision of Constitutional scheme of employment, as there should be an open invitation to all the concerned. Registration of name in the employment exchange may be one of the eligibility criteria, but drawing names from the employment exchange does not meet with the requirement of Constitutional scheme of employment. Admittedly the recruitment of the petitioners was not made in accordance with any rules.
9. Be that as it may, the daily wager cannot claim regularization, continuance or reinstatement in service on the basis of appointment, which was temporary and not in accordance with law and de hors the constitutional scheme of employment. (See Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and Others2, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.3 and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others4).
10. The contention of the petitioners that the State Government by its letter dated 5-3-2008 directed all the departments to regularize the services of daily wagers is concerned, the same is also noticed to be rejected, as in Umadevi (supra), the Supreme Court observed that "those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what we have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents." Thus, reliance of the petitioners on the letter dated 5- 3-2008 issued by the State Government is of no assistance.
11. The above ratio laid down by the Supreme Court has been reiterated by this Court in Ashwani Kumar Verma & Others v. State of Chhattigarh & Another5.
12. This Court in Sanjay Patil v. State of Chhattisgarh & Another6, while dealing with similar issue observed that "if the State Government has regularized some of the daily wagers, not appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment, this Court cannot issue a positive direction to legalise the illegal appointment on the ground that certain illegal appointments have been legalized/regularized by the employer.
13. In view of foregoing and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs.
J u d g e