Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 201 (PAT)

Sushil Kumar Choudhary v. Union Of India

2007-01-29

J.N.BHATT, S.K.SINHA

body2007
Judgment 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, dated 20.7.1999 in O.A. No. 189 of 1995 arising out of R.A. No. 39 of 1999 decided, on 6.7.2004, inter alia, contending that the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is bad in law. 2. Let it be articulated at the outset that the present petitioner approached the Tribunal mainly for the following reliefs: (a) The order for termination of services of the petitioner in terms of letter dated 29.12.1994 be quashed, (b) The order contained in letter no. C-3/CL/Howrah dated 28.12.1994 issued by respondent no. 4 be quashed, and (c) The petitioner be, also, reinstated on the post of part time Night Guard of SRO, RMS P Division, Howrah with consequential benefits. 3. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the facts and circumstances and the alleged legal right of the petitioner, as well as, the temporary nature of the job reached to the conclusion that the application was meritless, hence this writ petition. 4. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner came to be engaged from 1.4.1992 as Part Time Night Guard by one Ram Singhasan, Sub-Record Officer, RMS P Division, Howrah who happened to be the father of the petitioner, without the procedure being followed. The authority on consideration of the fact that the appointment was not legal, valid and regular without following the procedure and de hors the Recruitment Rules, terminated the services of the petitioner which was questioned before the Tribunal, unsuccessfully. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. The engagement of the petitioner as a Part Time Night Guard from 1.4.1992 without any notification of the vacancy in the concerned Employment Exchange and without following the due process of law cannot be sustained as the petitioner has no legal right which could be defended in the writ jurisdiction. 6. It is the settled proposition of law that a part timer, daily wagers or work charge person and other such persons cannot acquire any legal right to claim such appointment where regular processes prescribed under the Recruitment Rules have not been followed. 6. It is the settled proposition of law that a part timer, daily wagers or work charge person and other such persons cannot acquire any legal right to claim such appointment where regular processes prescribed under the Recruitment Rules have not been followed. This proposition is extensively examined and, elucidiately, expounded by the Constitutional Bench decision of the Hon ble Apex Court rendered h "Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi (3) and others" : (2006)4 Supreme Court Cases 1 [: 2006(2)PLJR (SC)363]. 7. Therefore, this petition is meritless and deserves to be summarily dismissed after hearing learned counsel for the parties. Accordingly, this petition shall stand dismissed.