Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghuvendra Dangi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 September, 2019
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
1
W.P. No. 18265/2017
Raghuvendra Dangi v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
Gwalior dated, 05.09.2019
Shri Amit Lahoti, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjay Bahirani, Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Vilas Teekhe, Advocate for respondent no. 2. The present petition has been filed being aggrieved by the action on the part of the respondents whereby petitioner's services have not been regularized and he has been relieved from work on 02.02. 2017.
2. It is submitted by the petitioner that he was initially appointed as Assistant Grade/Junior Assistant in the office of the respondent. He had been working for considerable period in the respondent department and all of a sudden the process through recruitment was started on 28th November 2016 for appointment to the post of the Junior Assistant/Assistant. It is submitted that writ petition was preferred being W.P. No. 8657/2016 against the action of the respondents in not regularising the services of the petitioner on the the sanctioned vacant post which was already occupied by him and for restraining the respondents from taking any action for fresh recruitment. The Hon'ble High court vide order dated 22 nd, December, 2016 has disposed of the writ petition with direction to the petitioners to prefer representation to the respondent authorities regarding their grievances and in turn the authorities were directed HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 W.P. No. 18265/2017 to decide the same within a reasonable time and outcome be communicated to the petitioners. Representation was submitted on 24th, December 2016 and the respondent authorities while considering representation has rejected the same on 28 th January 2016. Another writ petition was preferred being W.P. No. 1161/2017. The same was dismissed as withdrawn to file fresh writ petition. After dismissal of the petition the respondent authorities have again started recruitment on the post of Data Entry Operator. Therefore the present petition has been filed seeking following relief:-
"1. That, the orders impugned Annexure P-1 and P-2 may kindly be quashed.
2. That, the respondents may be directed to reconsider the representation/application submitted by the petitioner before the authorities with respect to consideration of the case of the petitioner and with respect to various recruitments made by the respondents [ recruitment of various data entry operators by way of outsourcing Annexure P-9].
3. That, any other reliefs(s) to which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit may also be directed to be extended in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice.
4. That, the cost of this petition be also awarded to the petitioner".
3. It is alleged by the counsel for the petitioner that since they are working on the aforesaid post therefore their services cannot be dispensed with with in the manner in which the respondents are doing without providing them any opportunity of hearing and without following the principle of natural justice.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 W.P. No. 18265/2017
4. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondents no. 2 and 3.
5. Learned counsel Shri Vilas Teekhe has contended that the recruitment of petitioner was for a limited period looking to the urgency and smooth conduct of work. The corporation in pursuance of the Board of Director's decision dated 23.12. 2014 194 persons for its Regional/District offices were appointed through M.P. Con till completion of recruitment process by MP Professional Examination Board for fulfillment of vacant Direct/ Backlog posts of Assistants/Junior Assistants. The corporation has not given any assurance either to the agency ( M.P. Con) or the engaged persons that their services will be regularized. Efforts were being made by the corporation for fulfillment of the post through regular process of recruitment since from the last 5 years therefore for the purpose of smooth functioning of the corporation, the petitioners and others were inducted on temporary basis. It is further contended that the petitioners were engaged through out sourcing and the same cannot be said to be a regular appointment or appointment on daily wages, it was a stop gap-arrangement. It is further submitted that similar issue was raised and dealt with by the co-ordinate bench of this court in W.P. No. 655/2017 (Pradeep and Ors. v. Food Civil Supplies Department and Ors.) at Indore Bench and the said writ petition was finally disposed of on 14.2. 2018. The relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below for ready HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 W.P. No. 18265/2017 reference:-
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
6. The facts and circumstances involved in the present case is identical to the case which has been decided by this Hon'ble court at Indore Bench and the ratio laid down in aforesaid case will apply HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 W.P. No. 18265/2017 mutatis mutandis to the present case also.
7. Accordingly, finding no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed in the light of the observation made in the aforesaid writ petition.
(Vishal Mishra) ar Judge ABDUR RAHMAN 2019.09.14 18:08:05 +05'30'