Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1248 (MP)

Satish Prajapati v. State of M. P.

2005-12-06

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2005
ORDER 1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking following reliefs: (i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued for quashing the selection pursuant to the advertisement Annexure P-8 for the post of Time Keeper and LDC. (ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued for commanding the respondents to regularise the case of the petitioner and that he be given all the benefits for the post as also other consequential benefits. (iii) Any other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be given. 2. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner is serving on the post of LDC as daily wager since December, 1988. He has also passed requisite typing examination conducted by the Education Department and in that regard he has filed certificate dated 27.8.1991 (Annexure P-3). The contention of learned counsel is that the then CMO vide Annexure P-1 and P-2 has certified that the petitioner has worked under him. By inviting my attention to Annexure P-6 which a resolution of the Municipality dated 25.7.1995, it has been contended that unanimously it was resolved by the members of the Standing Committee that the employees who are serving for last 5 years on the post of LDC their services may be regularised and a letter be sent to the State Government for according sanction in that regard. It has been further canvassed by learned counsel that the petitioner is serving as daily wager on the post LDC from December, 1988, thus his services should have been regularised. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Shakeel Baksh v. State of M.P. and others [WP No. 1047/2001]. Learned counsel has further contended that despite filling up the post for regularizing the petitioner on the post of LDC, the respondent No.2 issued an advertisement (Annexure P-8) for the recruitment to the post of LDC and vide order dated 2nd May, 1997 recruited five persons on the post of LDC. The contention of learned counsel is that the justification which has been made by respondents in their return is that Saheb Rao Pandagare was more meritorious to the petitioner. The contention of learned counsel is that the justification which has been made by respondents in their return is that Saheb Rao Pandagare was more meritorious to the petitioner. But, on bare perusal of Annexure R-2 (b) the name of said Saheb Rao Pandagare is not there, therefore, it cannot be said that he is more meritorious. 3. On the other hand, Shri Harish Agnihotri, learned Government Advocate has submitted that the selection and appointment of suitable candidates were duly made by issuing advertisement and appointing them by respondent No.2. 4. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the selection process is bad in law and the candidates who were appointed have been wrongly appointed is without any substance for the simple reason that petitioner has not arrayed those persons as party to the petition. How and in what manner the selection process was not in accordance with the law and was arbitrary, nothing has been pointed out. Thus, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner in that regard is hereby rejected. 5. There is no substance in the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is serving on the post of LDC with effect from December, 1988. In that regard, there is a bald statement in the petition which is not supported by any document. Annexure P-1 and P-2 which are filed in that regard did not say anything that petitioner was serving on the post of LDC. On close scrutiny of these two documents, it is revealed that the CMO has simply certified that petitioner was appointed as daily wager from December, 1988, on which post he was serving, there is nothing in the certificate in that regard. Thus, it cannot be said that petitioner was serving on the post of LOC. The decision of Shakeel Baksh (supra) is tangentially off the point. In that case it was held that the employee was serving since 1989 and in those facts and circumstances, this Court passed an order directing to create a post and regularise the employee. However, in the present case, there is no material in order to hold that the petitioner was serving on the post of LDC with effect from December, 1988. There is no single document in order to show that petitioner was serving on the post of LDC. 6. However, in the present case, there is no material in order to hold that the petitioner was serving on the post of LDC with effect from December, 1988. There is no single document in order to show that petitioner was serving on the post of LDC. 6. So far as the validity of Annexure P-6 is concerned, in para 2 of the return it has been denied that any such resolution has been passed. On going through the return, it is gathered that the petitioner is serving as daily wager with effect from 5.1.1993. It has been denied that he is serving since December, 1988. Though it has been stated in the return that for sometime in the year 1988 he was on muster roll. 7. Looking to the facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the selection process and the appointment of candidates who were appointed on the post of LOC in pursuance to the advertisement. The petitioner has also not arrayed those persons as party to the petition. However, looking to the facts and circumstances, respondent No. 2 is directed that if it is found that petitioner is serving on the post of LDC for considerable long period, his case for regularization may be considered. 8. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is disposed of.