Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2577 (ALL)

JAWAHAR LAL YADAV v. DISTRICT JUDGE SONBHADRA

2007-10-09

RAKESH TIWARI

body2007
RAKESH TIWARI, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner was engaged as ad hoc Class IV employee on the post of process server in the pay scale of Rs. 750/- to 940/- in the District Court Sonbhadra on ad hoc basis vide order dated 4-2-2007. 3. His engagement has due to reason that one Sri Gyan Prakash Mishra Process Server worker in the Admn. Office (main) District and Session Court Sonbhadra had gone on medical leave. 4. The appointment letter of the petitioner appended as Annexure No. 2 shows that engagement of the petitioner is purely temporary and his services were liable to be terminated at any time without notice. The engagement order of the petitioner is as under : "you are hereby temporarily appointed on the post of Process Server in th pay scale of Rs. 750/- to 940/- plus allowances as admissible from time to time since 4-2-1997 to 5-3- 1997 on proceeding medical leave of Sri Gyan Prakash Misra Process Server in the Admn. Office (Main) District and Session Court Sonbhadra. You should note that your services are of purely temporary nature and may be terminated at any time without notice. In case the above conditions are accepted to you please report for duty immediately. " 5. The petitioner further claims that thereafter his name was brought on the muster roll on the employees of the judgeship and that one fine morning he was told not to come for work anymore. 6. Aggrieved by the order the petitioner filed a writ petition No. 35568 of 1999, which was disposed of on 30-8-1999 directing the respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner. 7. According to the petitioner his representation dated 25-3-2006 remained undecided. However, he again moved another representation on 18-9-2006 and was informed the petitioner was informed by letter dated 6-10-2006 of the Senior Administrative Officer of District Court at Sonbhadra provides that his representations had already been decided by the then District Judge on 12-11-1999 pursuance to the order dated 30-8-1999 passed by the High Court rejecting his claim for regularization. He was also informed that subsequent representation dated 25-3-2006 too was rejected by order dated 15-5-2006 passed by the then District Judge and his representation dated 18-9-2006 has also met the same fate vide order dated 4-10-2006 by the District Judge, Sonbhadra. He was also informed that subsequent representation dated 25-3-2006 too was rejected by order dated 15-5-2006 passed by the then District Judge and his representation dated 18-9-2006 has also met the same fate vide order dated 4-10-2006 by the District Judge, Sonbhadra. This petition has been filed for following reliefs : (a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 4-10-2006 passed by the District Judge Sonbhadra (copy not served) and the order dated 6-10-2006 passed by Senior Administrative Officer District Court Sonbhadra/respondent No. 2. (b) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to take the petitioner in regular service and payment of salary from time to time. (c) To issue any other writ, order or direction which this Honble Court may deem to be fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (d) To award costs of the petition in favour of the petitioner. 8. Admittedly the petitioner was engaged as an ad hoc employee on temporary basis in leave vacancy of Gyan Prakash Mishra as process server. He has to come through regular recruitment process for appointment on a permanent post. Neither the High Court can order for regularization of the petitioner in service in view of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Sardara Singh, (1998) SCC 709, nor can direct him to be absorbed and appointed in service as permanent employee being contrary to the law laid down by the apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi & Ors. , 2006 (3) LBESR 260 (SC) : (2006) 4 SCC 1 . It is also apparent from the record that the representations of the petitioner made from time to time have rejected. Moreover since the petitioner is not working in the judgeship since 1999 and merely because he has moved three representations for his engagement, it will not give him any representation from time to time. 9. In this regard I am supported by judgment rendered by the constitute Bench of the apex Court in AIR 1970 SC 470 , Rabindranath Bose & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. , is as under. Relevant paragraph 36 of the judgment is as under : "para 36. 9. In this regard I am supported by judgment rendered by the constitute Bench of the apex Court in AIR 1970 SC 470 , Rabindranath Bose & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. , is as under. Relevant paragraph 36 of the judgment is as under : "para 36. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however says that three has been representations were being no undue delay. He says representations were being received by the Government all the time. But there is a limitation to the time which can be considered reasonably for making representations. If the Government has turned down one representation, the making of another representation on similar lines would not enable the petitioners to explain the delay. Learned Counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioners were no impression that the Departmental Promotion Committee had held meeting in 1948 and not on April 29, 1949, and the real true facts came to be known in 1961, when the Government mentioned these facts in their letter dated December 28, 1961. We are unable to accept this explanation. This fact has been mentioned in the minutes of the meeting of the Committee which may in February, 1952 and we are not come to know all these facts till 1961. But even assuming that the petitioners came to know all these facts only in December, 1961, even then there has been inordinate delay in presenting the present petition. The fact that Jaisinghanis case, 1967 (2) SCR 703 : AIR 1967 SC 1427 , was pending before the High Court and later in this Court is also no excuse for the delay in presenting the present petition. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. " 10. For the reasons stated above the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution much less has shown any illegality or infirmity in the orders dated 12-11-1999, 25-3- 2006 and 18-9-2006 rejecting the representation of the petitioner by the District Judges, Sonbhadra from time to time. 11. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .