Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 425 (MP)

Narendra Kumar Mishra v. State of M. P.

2011-04-05

SANJAY YADAV

body2011
JUDGMENT : Heard on admission. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks quashment of resolution dated 08-03-2011 passed by Nagar Panchayat, Semariya, and a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to work as Computer Operator. The petitioner was engaged as daily wage Computer Operator on 05-05-2008 by the Nagar Panchayat, Semariya. The petitioner while he was discharging the duty as daily wage Computer Operator, a decision was taken by Nagar Panchayat to en cadre the post of Computer Operator, for that a resolution was passed on 29-06-2009 which was forwarded to the State Government for its approval. No material is brought on record to show that the State Government has approved the en- cadrement. Pertinent it is to note that the appointment of the petitioner as apparent from the resolution No. 4 passed by President in Council in its meeting dated 29-06-2009 (Annexure-P/3) was subject to final approval. The petitioner continued to discharge as daily wage Computer Operator. When subsequently vide resolution No. 10 passed by Nagar Parishad in its meeting dated 08-03-2011, it was decided to dispense with the services of the petitioner. The said resolution as is apparent vide Annexure-P/11 was passed unanimously. The petitioner continued to discharge as daily wage Computer Operator. When subsequently vide resolution No. 10 passed by Nagar Parishad in its meeting dated 08-03-2011, it was decided to dispense with the services of the petitioner. The said resolution as is apparent vide Annexure-P/11 was passed unanimously. The resolution is in following terms :- " dk;kZy; uxj iapk;r lsefj;k ftyk jhok e- ç- ifj"kn cSBd fnukad 08-03-2011 dh lR; çfrfyfi çLrko dekad 10 fu.kZ; dEI;wVj vkijsVj ds ppkZ mijkUr fu.kZ; fy;k tkrk gS fd okMZ 8 ik"kZn Jh lEcU/k esa fopkj vt; 'kqDyk dk dFku gS fd nSfud eLVj etwnjh ij dk;Z dj jgs Jfed Jh ukjsUnz dqekj feJk dk dk;Z O;ogkj ifj"kn ds vuq#i ugha gS buds Onkjk uxj iapk;r ds dk;ksZ ds vykok ckgj ds Hkh dk;Z iapk;r dEI;wVj esa fd;s tkrs gSa buds }kjk fudk; dh xksiuh;rk Hkh Hkax dh tkrh gS budks rRdky uxj iapk;r ds Jfed in ls gVk;k tk; ,oa ;fn eq[; uxj ikfydk vf/k- mDr Jfed dks ugha gVkrs gSa rks mDr Jfed ds etnwjh dk Hkqxrku vius Lo;a ds osru ls djsaxs blds fy, ifj"kn mRrjnk;h ugha gksxh dk;kZy; laHkkxh; mi lapkyd uxjh; ç'kklu ,oa fodkl ds i= dzekad 1009 fn- 23-7-09 esa Li"V mYys[k gS fd laLFkk esa dk;Z dj jgs fu;fer deZpkjh dks çf'k{k.k fnykdj dk;Z fy;k tk;A mDr dFku ls lHkh ik"kZn lger gSaA mik?;{k ,o ik"kZn okMZ dz- 4 Jherh lquhrk feJk dk dFku gS fd ftl O;fDr ls dk;Z djk;k tk jgk gS mlh ls dk;Z djk;k tk; ;gh dFku v?;{k egks0 mik/;{k ls lger gSaA çLrko cgqaer ls ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA " Alleging malafide on the proposer of said resolution i.e. one councilor of Ward No. 8 Shri Ajay Shukla, it is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner has been punitively visited with the order without affording any opportunity of hearing. It is contended that though on daily wages, the petitioner holds substantive interest against the post of Computer Operator on which he was discharging after being duly appointed and, therefore, has a right of hearing. In the considered opinion of this Court since the appointment of the petitioner as is apparent from the resolution No. 1 and 4 dated 29-06-2009 was purely on daily wages, no right accrues in favour of the petitioner as the appointment was not against any vacant post but in contemplation of sanction of en-cadreing of the said post. In the considered opinion of this Court since the appointment of the petitioner as is apparent from the resolution No. 1 and 4 dated 29-06-2009 was purely on daily wages, no right accrues in favour of the petitioner as the appointment was not against any vacant post but in contemplation of sanction of en-cadreing of the said post. Even the procedure known to law for recruiting him was resorted to. The said appointment does not create any right in favour of the petitioner as would entitle him for a prior opportunity of hearing before discontinuing him as daily wage worker. The reason as assigned vide resolution No. 10 being in the interest of Nagar Panchayat cannot in any manner be doubted with, not the same can be interfered with. In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, no costs.