Madhya Pradesh High Court
Keerat Lal Chouhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 May, 2017
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH,
JABALPUR, M.P.
DIVISION BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K.Gangele
&
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subodh Abhyankar
WRIT APPEAL NO.24 OF 2017
Ishwar Dayal Tembhre.
Vs.
State of M.P. & others.
WRIT APPEAL NO.25 OF 2017
Keerat Lal Chauhan.
Vs.
State of M.P. & others.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.P.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Amit Seth, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGEMENT
(Delivered on this the 4th day of May, 2017) The following judgment of the Court was rendered by:
Per:Subodh Abhyankar,J:
This judgment shall govern the disposal of above mentioned WA No.24/2017 & WA No.25/2017, as both these appeals have arisen out of a common order dated 7.12.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Writ Court in WP No.4332/2013 and WP No.4334/2013, whereby the appellants' claim for regularization on the post of Ayurved Compounder has been rejected, confirming the order dated 20.3.2013 passed by the respondent No.2-Commissioner-
Bhartiya Chikitsa Paddhati and Homeopathy, Madhya Pradesh. The learned Writ Court has dismissed the writ petitions relying upon the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Suchit Kumar Choukade Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in WP No.4170/2011, whereby the Indore Bench of this Court has dismissed the bunch of writ petitions also claiming regularization.
2. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants are that the decision rendered in the case of Suchit Kumar Choukade (supra) wherein the learned Writ Court has held that Sunil Kumar Joshi, Sunita Gupta etc. Ayurved Compounders have been appointed against backlog vacancy, is totally incorrect, as the petitioners do not belong to backlog category and they are general category. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that their case is squarely covered by Annexure P-3, which is in respect of general category candidate, and as such no discrimination can be made against them on the ground that they belong to backlog category despite the fact that they belong to general category only. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants deserve to be regularized from the date of their initial appointment being dated 27.2.1999 and not from 27.2.2009 as has been held vide Annexure P-4 in WP No.4332/2013.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the impugned orders are just and proper, and therefore do not call for any interference by this Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. From the record, it appears that the appellants have filed various orders to demonstrate that the case of the appellants are at par with other similarly situated persons. One such order has been passed in the case of Dinesh Gupta Vs. State of M.P. (WP No.6046/2007) decided on 20.2.2009 and also in the case of Ranjana Mandloi Vs. State of M.P. (WP No.4539/2010). After carefully going through the impugned order wherein the decision rendered in the case of Suchit Kumar Choukade (supra) is also reproduced, it is apparent that the said petition was dismissed on the ground that those persons who have been regularized were appointed against the backlog vacancies and were regularized with retrospective effect and it is held that the case of the petitioner was not a case of filling up the backlog vacancies. In the case of Suchit Kumar Choukade (supra), it is specifically held by the Indore Bench of this Court that no statutory provision of law was brought to the notice of this Court warranting regularization of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment.
6. We also find that in the present case, the appellants have come out with a case that their appointment was not made against the backlog vacancy and as such they are entitled to be regularized on the basis of order dated 11.3.2010 passed in favour of Sushil Joshi, Dinesh Gupta, Ayyub Sheikh, Smt. Sunita Gupta and Ravindra Panchbhai. The relevant paras of the said order are reproduced as under:-
^^8- e-iz-z 'kklu vk;q'k foHkkx ds ifji= Ãekad ,Q 2&10@2009@1] vk;q'k fnukad 28-01-2009 ,oa le la[;d ifji= fnukad 02-02-2009 ds vk/kkj ij lapkyuky; ds vkns'k Ãekad@2@LFkk@09@833&849 Hkksiky fnukad 19-02-2009 ds }kjk izns'k ds lHkh ftyk iapk;r }kjk lafonk ds vk/kkj ij fu;qDr fd;s x;s lHkh vkS'k/kky; dfeZ;ksa dks fu;fer fd;k x;k] blds rgr ;kfpdk drkZvksa dks 19-02-2009 fnukad ls fu;fer fd;k x;kA 9- lapkyuky; ds vkns'k Ãekad@2@ LFkk@09@3525&355] Hkksiky fnukad 26-08-2009 }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh [k.MihB bUnkSj esa nk;j ;kfpdk esa fu.kZ; fnukad 18-03-2008 ds vuqikyu esa leLr cSdykWx ds inksa ij fu;qDr /kkj] >kcqvk o [kjxksu ds 18 dEikm.Mjksa dks muds izFke fu;qfDr fnukad ls fu;fer djus ds vkns'k tkjh fd;s x;sA 10- mDr vkns'k esa ;kfpdk drkZvksa ds uke ugha Fkk] tcfd bldh fu;qfDr Hkh 38 dEikm.Mjksa ds fjDr inksa ds fy;s tkjh mlh foKkiu ds ek/;e ls gq;h] ftlds ek/;e ls mu dEikm.Mjksa dh fu;qfDr gqbZ] ftUgsa izFke fu;qfDr fnukad ls fu;fer fd;k x;k gSA bl foKkiu esa ;g dgha Hkh mYys[k ugha Fkk fd ;g foKkiu fo'ks'k HkrhZ vfHk;ku ds rgr cSdykWx ds inksa dh iwfrZ ds fy;s foKkfir fd;k x;k gSA bl rF; ds vk/kkj ij ;kfpdk drkZvksa dk ;g nkok gS fd mls Hkh iwoZ esa fd;s x;s vkjf{kr oxZ ds dEikm.Mjksa dh HkkWfr lafonk ij izFke fu;qfDr fnukad ls fu;fer fd;k tk;] D;ksafd vukjf{kr inksa ij fu;qDr gksus okys ;kfpdk drkZ ¼lHkh lkekU; oxZ ds izR;k'kh½ ftl lafonk lsok HkrhZ fu;e ds rgr fu;qDr gq;s Fks] mlh fu;e ds rgr vkjf{kr inksa ij vkjf{kr oxZ ds izR;k'kh Hkh fu;qDr gq;s FksA 12- bl izdkj ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh [k.MihB bUnkSj esa nk;j ;kfpdkvksa Ãe'k% Ãekad MCY;w-ih- ¼,l½&6042@2007 Jh eks- v;wc 'ks[k] MCY;w-ih- ¼,l½&6046@2007 Jh fnus'k xqIrk] MCY;w-ih-¼,l½&6047@2007 Jherh lquhrk xqIrk] MCY;w-ih-
¼,l½&6049@2007 Jh jfoUnz iapHkkbZ ,oa MCY;w-ih-¼,l½&6048@2007 Jh lquhy tks'kh esa gq;s fu.kZ; fnukad 20-02-2009 ds ikyu esa izdj.k dk iqujh{k.k djus ij ;g ik;k tkrk gS fd ,d gh fu;e ds rgr ,d lkFk fu;qDr izR;kf'k;ksa esa ls vkjf{kr oxZ esa izFke fu;qfDr fnukad ls fu;fer fd, x;s vuqlwfpr tkfr@ tutkfr ds dEikm.Mjksa] ds leku gh mDr ;kfpdk drkZvksa dks Hkh izFke fu;qfDr fnukad ls fu;fer fd;k tkuk bl vk/kkj ij mfpr gS fd os Hkh mlh fu;e ds rgr fu;qDr gq;sA rFkk ,d gh fu;e ds rgr fu;qDr gksus ds ckn Hkh vuqlwfpr tkfr@ tutkfr ds izR;kf'k;ksa dks izFke fu;qfDr fnukad ls fu;fer fd;k x;k] tcfd mDr ;kfpdk drkZvksa dks bldk ykHk ugha fn;k x;kAà (emphasis supplied) Vide order dated 14.12.2011 in the case of Hemant Nagar and Ashish Joshi, it is held as under:-
^^9- lapkyuky; ds vkns'k Ãekad@2@LFkk@ 09@3525&3551] fnukad 26-08-2009 }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh [k.MihB bUnkSj esa nk;j ;kfpdk esa fu.kZ; fnukad 18-03-2008 ds vuqikyu esa leLr cSdykWx ds inksa ij fu;qDr /kkj] >kcqvk o [kjxksu ds 16 dEikm.Mjksa dks muds izFke fu;qfDr fnukad ls fu;fer djus ds vkns'k tkjh fd;s x;sA 10- mDr vkns'k esa ;kfpdk drkZvksa ds uke ugha Fks] tcfd bldh fu;qfDr Hkh 36 dEikm.Mjksa ds fjDr inksa ds fy;s tkjh mlh foKkiu ds ek/;e ls gq;h] ftlds ek/;e ls mu dEikm.Mjksa dh fu;qfDr gqbZ] ftUgsa izFke fu;qfDr fnukad ls fu;fer fd;k x;k gSA bl foKkiu esa ;g dgha Hkh mYys[k ugha Fkk fd ;g foKkiu fo'ks'k HkrhZ vfHk;ku ds rgr cSdykWx ds inksa dh iwfrZ ds fy;s foKkfir fd;k x;k gSA bl rF; ds vk/kkj ij ;kfpdk drkZvksa dk ;g nkok gS fd mls Hkh iwoZ esa fd;s x;s vkjf{kr oxZ ds dEikm.Mjksa dh HkkWfr lafonk ij izFke fu;qfDr fnukad ls fu;fer fd;k tk;] D;ksafd vukjf{kr inksa ij fu;qDr gksus okys ;kfpdk drkZ ¼lHkh lkekU; oxZ ds izR;k'kh½ ftl lafonk lsok HkrhZ fu;e ds rgr fu;qDr gq;s Fks] mlh fu;e ds rgr vkjf{kr inksa ij vkjf{kr oxZ ds izR;k'kh Hkh fu;qDr gq;s FksA 11- e-iz- mPp U;k;ky; dh [k.MihB bUnkSj esa nk;j ;kfpdkvksa Ãe'k% Ãekad MCY;w-ih- ¼,l½&6042@2007 Jh eks- v;wc 'ks[k] MCY;w-ih- ¼,l½&6046@2007 Jh fnus'k xqIrk] MCY;w-ih-¼,l½&6047@2007 Jherh lquhrk xqIrk] MCY;w-ih-¼,l½&6049@2007 Jh jfoUnz iapHkkbZ ,oa MCY;w-ih-
¼,l½&6048@2007 Jh lquhy tks'kh esa gq;s fu.kZ; fnukad 20-02-2009 ds ikyu esa izdj.k dk iqujh{k.k djus ij ;g ik;k tkrk gS fd ,d gh izfÃ;k@fu;e ds rgr ,d lkFk fu;qDr izR;kf'k;ksa esa ls vkjf{kr oxZ esa izFke fu;qfDr fnukad ls fu;fer fd, x;s vuqlwfpr tkfr@ tutkfr ds dEikm.Mjksa] ds leku gh mDr ;kfpdk drkZvksa dks Hkh izFke fu;qfDr fnukad ls fu;fer fd;k tkuk bl vk/kkj ij mfpr gS fd os Hkh mlh fu;e ds rgr fu;qDr gq;sA rFkk ,d gh fu;e ds rgr fu;qDr gksus ds ckn Hkh vuqlwfpr tkfr@ tutkfr ds izR;kf'k;ksa dks izFke fu;qfDr fnukad ls fu;fer fd;k x;k] tcfd mDr ;kfpdk drkZvksa dks bldk ykHk ugha fn;k x;kA bls vk/kkj ekudj lapkyuky; vkns'k fnukad 11-03-2010 ls mDr ;kfpdkdrkZvksa dks mudh izFke fu;qfDr fnukad ls fu;fer fd;k x;kA 12- ;kfpdk Ãekad@MCY;w-ih-@6160@10 Jh gsear ukxj ,oa Jh vk'khâk tks'kh }kjk Hh eku- mPp U;k;ky; esa ;kfpdk nk;j dh xbZA ;kfpdk esa U;k;ky; fu.kZ; fnukad 20-05-2010 ikfjr dj funsZ'k fn;s gS fd ,dleku izdj.k gksus ls buds vH;kosnu dk l{ke vf/kdkjh }kj ijh{k.k dj fu.kZ; fy;k tk;sA 13- lapkyuky; vkns'k Ãekad@2@LFkk@ 10@2998&3017] fnukad 11-01-11 }kjk eku- mPp U;k;ky; [k.MihB bUnkSj esa nk;j ;kfpdkvksa esa fofHkUu frfFk;ksa esa gq, fu.kZ;ksa ds vuqikyu esa cSdykWx ds inksa ij fu;qDr] >kcqvk ¼vyhjktiqj½] [kjxksu ¼cMokuh½ ds 11 dEim.Mjksa dks Hkh muds izFke fu;qfDr fnukad ls fu;fer djus ds vkns'k tkjh fd;s x;sA 14- Jh gsear ukxj ,oa Jh vk'khâk tks'kh ds }kjk nk;j fjV ;kfpdk esa eku- mPp U;k;ky; [k.MihB bUnkSj }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 20-05-2010 ds ikyu esa izdj.k dk ijh{k.k djus ij ;g ik;k tkrk gS fd ,d gh fu;e@izfÃ;k rFkk ,d gh foKkiu ds rgr ,d lkFk fu;qDr izr;kf'k;ksa esa ls vkjf{kr oxZ ds izR;k'kh izfke fu;qfDr fnukad ls fu;fer fd;s x;sA vuqlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr@vU; fiNMk oxZ ds dEikm.Mjksa ds leku gh bu ;kpdkdrkZvksa dks Hkh izFke fu;qfDr fnukad ls fu;fer fd;k tkuk bl vk/kkj ij mfpr gksxk fd os Hkh mlh fu;e@izfÃ;k rFkk foKkiu ds rgr fu;qDr gq;sA ,d gh fu;e@izfÃ;k@ foKkiu ds rgr fu;qDr gksus ds ckn Hkh vuqlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr@ vU; fiNMk oxZ ds izR;kf'k;ksa dks izfke fu;qfDr fnukad ls fu;fer fd;k x;k] tcfd ;kfpdkdrkZvksa dks bldk ykHkh ugha fn;k x;kA 15- vr% ;kfpdkdrkZvksa dks Hkh ek- mPp U;;ky; [k.MihB& bankSj esa mDr ;kfpdkvksa esa gq, fu.kZ; fnukad 20-05-2010 ds vuqikyu esa fnukad 11-03-2010 ls lafonk ij izFke fu;qfDr fnukad ls fu;fer djus ds tks vkns'k tkjh fd;s x;s gS blh ds leku izdj.k gksus ls iSjk&3 esa n'kkZ;s x;s izFke lafonk fu;qfDr fnukad ls fu;fer fd;k tkrk gSAà (emphasis supplied) Similar is the situation of Nasir Khan and Ranjana Mandloi.
7. Also perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Indore Bench of this Court in WP No.4170/2013 wherein the petitioner's petition has been dismissed on the ground that he was appointed in the year 2005 and other persons, who were appointed against the backlog vacancies, have been regularized with retrospective effect, and since the petitioner's case was not of backlog category, he cannot be given the benefit of regularization as has been given to other employees namely Sushil Kumar Joshi, Dinesh Gupta etc. the aforesaid finding is ex-facie wrong as the order dated 11.3.2010 filed in Annexure P-3 of WP No.4332/2013 these persons do not belong to any backlog category and on the contrary in their order of regularization from their initial date of appointment this aspect has been specifically dealt with that these persons were not appointed against the backlog vacancies.
8. Admittedly, the appellants have not produced any statutory rule to show that they are entitled to be regularized, but it is also not their case. Their case is that they are claiming parity with other similarly situated employees who have already been regularized by the State Government, and in absence of any statutory rules in this behalf, it cannot be said that they are not entitled to claim parity.
9. The other ground on the basis of which the petition has been dismissed is that the petitioners have not shown any statutory provisions of law for regularization from the date of their initial date of appointment and in absence of such provision of law, their prayer for regularization cannot be considered, as even the executive instructions have not been brought to the notice of this Court. The aforesaid order passed in the case of Suchit Kumar Choukade (supra) has been relied upon by the learned Single Judge in the case at hand and has been held to be applicable mutatis mutandis. We are afraid that we are unable to endorse the aforesaid findings of the writ Court as we are of the view that if the persons of reserved categories as also of the general category have been appointed on the basis of same or similar advertisement for the similar posts, their individual cases cannot be discriminated only on the ground of their category so far as the conditions of service are concerned and if such discrimination is allowed to stand, the same would be in clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
10. We are of the considered opinion that the documents filed by the appellants in the present case wherein the parity is sought on the basis of order of regularization in respect of orders dated 11.3.2010, 14.12.2011 and 14.12.2011 passed in favour of Dinesh Gupta, Sushil Joshi, Ayyub Sheikh, Smt. Sunita Gupta, Ravindra Panchbhai, Nasir Khan and Ranjana Mandloi etc., wherein the Government has specifically dealt with the fact that these persons have been appointed on the basis of an advertisements wherein it is nowhere provided that the same have been issued in respect of the backlog category and it is further mentioned in these orders that they were appointed in pursuance of the advertisement in which many Compounders have been appointed, who have already been regularized from the date of their initial appointment. The appellants have also filed an advertisement (Annexure P-11) along with rejoinder which was issued and on the basis of which the appellants have been appointed. The language used in the aforesaid advertisement (Annexure P-11) is similar to that of advertisement (Annexure P-2) dated 27.12.1997 wherein other similarly situated persons who have already been regularized, were appointed. In the advertisement (Annexure P-11) it is nowhere provided the same is for the backlog vacancies. Thus this Court prima facie finds that the case of the appellants cannot be distinguished with that of the cases of the persons belonging to the backlog category, and in fact their case is squarely covered by the orders dated 11.3.2010, 14.12.2011 and 14.12.2011 passed in the case of Dinesh Gupta Nasir Khan, Ranjana Mandloi etc.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned dated 7.12.2016 passed by the learned Writ Court in WP No.4332/2013 and WP No.4334/2013 is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to regularized the services of the appellants as in the case of Dinesh Gupta, Sushil Joshi, Ayyub Sheikh, Smt. Sunita Gupta, Ravindra Panchbhai, Ranjana Mandloi and accord the similar benefit to the present appellants also. The aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(S.K. Gangele) (Subodh Abhyankar) Judge Judge 04/5/2017 04/5/2017 Ansari.