Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ghanshyam Chouksey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 September, 2014
1
W.P. No.21705/2013
Ghanshyam Chouksey vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
08.09.2014
Shri Himanshu Tiwari learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission.
The petitioner has filed this petition being
aggrieved by order dated 13.08.2013 passed by
the Collector, Hoshangabad, whereby the
petitioner's claim for regularization has been
rejected.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner was engaged for election work
and was thereafter disengaged, consequent to
which he had filed W.P No.7831/2005 (S) alleging
that the petitioner was a surplus employee of B
category and was entitled to appointment in the
regular establishment as Assistant Grade-3 as he
had been engaged to perform the electoral work.
The petition came up for hearing on
25.06.2013 on which date it was disposed of with a
direction to the respondent no.2 Collector,
Hoshangabad to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization.
Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the petitioner's claim was taken up for consideration by the Collector, Hoshangabad and has been rejected by the impugned order dated 2 W.P. No.21705/2013 Ghanshyam Chouksey vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
13.08.2013, being aggrieved by which the petitioner has filed this present petition.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was entitled to be considered for appointment in the regular establishment in view of the circular of the State Government dated 29.7.1994 and 25.2.2011 by which electoral employees had been exempted from participating in the selection process for appointment and such employees had been directed to be appointed in the regular establishment.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that the Collector has taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner was engaged temporarily for electoral work from 1.12.2007 to 31.5.2008 and thereafter upto 31.5.2009 with intervening breaks. It is also clear that the Collector has taken into consideration the entire record of the petitioner and has recorded a finding to the effect that the petitioner was engaged on temporary basis for electoral work without following any procedure prescribed by law. The Collector, by placing reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 and State of Himachal Pradesh 3 W.P. No.21705/2013 Ghanshyam Chouksey vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
vs. Suresh Kumar Verma, Case No.3492/1996, has stated that the engagement of the petitioner was illegal and, therefore, cannot be regularized. Even before this Court, it has not been established that the petitioner was engaged after following the procedure prescribed by law on the post of Assistant Grade-3 or that he possesses the required qualification or that any proceedings for selection by issuing advertisement was taken up by the authorities while engaging the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the Collector rejecting the petitioner's claim specifically in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra). The petition, filed by the petitioner, being meritless is, accordingly, dismissed.
( R. S. JHA ) JUDGE mms/-