Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pradeep vs Food, Civil Supplies Department on 14 February, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P.No.655/2017
Indore, Dt. 14.2.2018
Shri Ashish Joshi, counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Piyush Shrivastava, counsel for State.
Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, counsel for respondent
Nos.2,5,6 and 7.
Heard finally with consent.
By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to regularise their services as Assistant, Junior Assistant and Data Entry Operator. In the alternative, they have prayed for giving the priority right and preference in the regular selection process for appointment on the above post.
The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed on the aforesaid posts temporarily vide orders of appointment issued between the period 2012-2015 and since then they are working on the said post and have been granted the benefit attached to the post but now the respondents have issued the advertisement Annx.P/1 for regular selection and appointment to the posts in question, aggrieved with the same this writ petition has been filed.
Respondents by filing the reply have opposed the claim of the petitioners.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners are working on the concerned post since last 4-5 years, therefore either they should be regularised or they should be given preference in appointment on the regular basis.
As against this, learned counsel for respondents have raised a plea that the petitioners are not even the appointees on contract basis but they were appointed through outsourcing, therefore they have not right to claim weightage or preference in the regular selection process .
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that appointment of the petitioners on the post of Computer Operator, Data Entry Operator, Junior Assistant etc. was through outsourcing, that too purely on temporary basis. The appointment of the petitioners was not after following the regular selection process, therefore on the basis of such a temporary appointment through outsourcing, no right has accrued in favour of the petitioners to claim regularisation.
The record reflects that now the regular selection process has been initiated vide Annx.P/1. The regular selection process is as per the procedure prescribed under the relevant rules. Nothing has been pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners to show that petitioners have any legal right to claim weightage or preference in the regular selection process on the basis of their working at outsourcing. The issue relating to giving weightage for experience is a matter of policy decision or prescription in the rules.
In the present writ petition, since the petitioners are not even the daily wagers, therefore the circulars which have been issued by the State Government for extending certain benefits to the daily wagers are not applicable to the petitioners. Reply of the respondents further reveals that petitioners were appointed through outsourcing only till the final regular selection is made and now the regular selection process has started.
Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief in the writ petition.
The writ petition is found to be devoid of any merits, which is accordingly dismissed.
(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge mk Digitally signed by Mukta Koushal Date: 2018.02.19 10:59:35 +05'30'