Madhya Pradesh High Court
M.P. Bhoj Open University vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 June, 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.A.No. 659 / 2018
[MP Bhoj Open University and others Vs. The State of MP and others]
Jabalpur, Dated : 20.06.2018.
Shri Puneet Shroti, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Amit Seth, Government Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Praveen Verma, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 5.3.2018, wherein the writ petition was partly allowed while giving liberty to the writ petitioners to prefer a detailed representation seeking regularization within 21 days from the date of the order, which was required to be considered within a period of 45 days. However, the learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that the writ petitioners were engaged on daily wages as per 'collectorate rate' by the Regional Director of the University. It is the said finding which is disputed by the appellants in this appeal.
Learned Single Bench has found that the writ petitioners were initially appointed by Vindhya Security Agency as per document dated 11.3.2010, but thereafter, they were appointed on 'collectorate rate' by the Regional Centre of the University. It was clarified by the appellants on 21.1.2014 that no employee is working through any Security Agency. It is in these circumstances the assertion of the appellants that the writ petitioners are not engaged by the University was not accepted.
Learned counsel for the appellants refers to a document dated 1.4.2010 - Annexure A/4 appended with the present memorandum of appeal, to contend that the writ petitioners were appointed on the same terms and conditions as were the conditions stipulated by the Security Agency, therefore, the writ petitioners cannot be treated to be employed by the University.
We do not find any merit in the said argument. A reading of the entire document shows that it has been communicated that the writ petitioners will not be treated as a person holding 'civil post', but they are being appointed on daily wages on temporary basis. It only shows that the writ petitioners have been 2 appointed and are working under the University, may be on daily wages on temporary basis and not under the Security Agency.
In view of the said fact, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge which may warrant interference in the present intra court appeal.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) (AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Digitally signed
by ANIL KUMAR
SHIVARAMAN
Date: 2018.06.21
16:37:49 +05'30' Aks/-