Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1114 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Prashant Kasture

2012-11-06

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2012
ORDER Shantanu Kemkar, J.-- 1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 23.04.2012 in Writ Petition No. 12469/2010 (S), by which the writ petition preferred by the respondent,challenging her de-regularisation, was allowed and the order dated 17.09.2010 de-regularising the respondent was quashed. 2. This appeal is also barred by limitation of 13 days, so the appellants have moved another application seeking condonation of delay. 3. Learned Dy. Govt. Advocate submitted that regularisation order was passed without considering the fact that the post on which the respondent was regularised belongs to ST candidate, while the respondent was of general category. That the person who had regularised the services of the respondent has also suffered a departmental enquiry against such action. It is submitted that this appeal may be admitted after condoning the delay. 4. We have perused the record. 5. Facts of the case are that the respondent was initially appointed as Lab Assistant, as daily rated employee. A Committee was consitituted to regularise such employees and after the recommendation of the Committee on 30.09.2003, his services were regularised. He was confirmed on the post, but after receiving the report in the matter of Dr. P.C. Dulduye a show case notice was issued. Thereafter vide order dated 17.09.2010 he was deregularised. This order was under challenge in the writ Court. The writ Court has held that such order could not have been passed after such a long time and relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjeev Yadav Vs. Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education 2009 (1) JLJ 266 = 2008 (5) MPHT 366 (DB), the writ petition was allowed and order of deregularising the respondent was quashed. 6. We have considered the contention of the appellants. Though in the matter of Dr. P.C. Dulduye, in the enquiry conducted against him a finding was recorded that a regularisation order was not correct, but the fact remains that after more 2 years after regularisation of the respondent he was confirmed as regular employee. He was regularised on 30.09.2003 and after confirmation he had continued as regular employee till 17.09.2010 and thereafter he was de-regularised, meaning thereby that after 7 years he was de-regularised. 7. He was regularised on 30.09.2003 and after confirmation he had continued as regular employee till 17.09.2010 and thereafter he was de-regularised, meaning thereby that after 7 years he was de-regularised. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant was specifically asked whether there is any provision in the Service Rules providing for deregularisation of the employee after confirmation of the employee, providing such powers with the authority to de-regularise the service, but nothing could be shown to us. Once the services of the employee was regularised, thereafter the order was confirmed and he was made regular employee, then without conducting an enquiry against such employee such order could not have been passed merely by issuing notice. 8. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the action of the appellants to deregularise the respondent was not legal one and the learned Single Judge has rightly quashed the order. 9. In Sanjeev Yadav’s case (supra), a Division Bench considering the similar circumstances held that appointment order cannot be cancelled after lapse of more than 3 years and the order of termination of services was quashed. In the present case, the respondent stood on a better footing. After regularisation he was confirmed by subsequent order issued by the appellants. Thereafter his services were deregularised. In these circumstnaces, there was no justification in the action of the appellants for deregularisation of the service of the respondent. So far as the contention of the appellants that the respondent was regularised on the post which was reserved for ST candidate is concerned, the respondent belongs to General category, the aforesaid aspect ought to have been looked into at the time of confirmation of his regularisation, but it appears that it was not seen or overlooked at the time of confirmation of regularistion of the respondent. In the circumstances, after 7 years of regularisation such action of the appellants cannot be approved. 10. It is also brought to our notice that the enquiry against Dr. P.C. Dulduye was completed on 18.12.2007. Thereafter vide order dated 16.02.2009 he was allowed regular pay scale. 11. In view of the aforesaid factual position, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 10. It is also brought to our notice that the enquiry against Dr. P.C. Dulduye was completed on 18.12.2007. Thereafter vide order dated 16.02.2009 he was allowed regular pay scale. 11. In view of the aforesaid factual position, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. As we have considered the case of the appellants on merits and find that it is not a case fit for admission, there is no necessity to pass any order on the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. No orders as to costs.