Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 218 (JHR)

Sankadeep Sahu v. Ranchi University, Ranchi

2013-02-11

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners have once again come before this Court in the present writ application for seeking absorption/regularization in the Respondents Universities on Class IV Post after giving them age relaxation and preference over the others. 3. According to them, these petitioners, 13 in number were engaged under Respondents University for certain period from 19891991 respectively and were terminated w.e.f. 1st February, 1991. They earlier approached this Court in W.P. (S) No. 2389 of 2001 for directing the respondents to take a decision to fill up the post of Class III and Class IV post after giving them age relaxation and preference for which an advertisement was also said to have been issued. The writ petition was disposed of without getting into merit in the controversy vide order dated 4th April, 2002 in the following terms: “Without giving any such direction, this Court feels that such discretion should be left with the Respondents if the petitioners file individual representation. If such representations are filed within a period of four weeks the Respondents will look onto it and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of four months thereafter. It goes without saying that the Respondents while considering the representations may, in their discretion, take into consideration the duration of engagement of the petitioners and if otherwise not prevented, then they may consider the desirability of passing orders redressing the grievances of the petitioners, but in accordance with law. Let it be recorded that this Court has not decided the claim of the petitioners in any way whatsoever. Mr. Mehta states that pursuant to the order dated 3.6.2001 the University has already issued a cheque for Rs. 7,905/dated 16.8.2001 in favour of Sankadeep Sahu (petitioner no.1) but in his absence, the same has remained in the custody of the Respondents. He however states that the Respondents have no objection if Sankadeep Sahu (Petitioner no.1) presents himself before the Finance Officer of the University. He further states that if he does so, the University will release the cheque in his favour on proper identification/verification. They may do so. With the aforesaid observations, this writ application is dismissed as withdrawn.” 4. The reasoned order was passed thereafter by the Registrar of the University on 12th April, 2003, which is Annexure7 to the writ application. He further states that if he does so, the University will release the cheque in his favour on proper identification/verification. They may do so. With the aforesaid observations, this writ application is dismissed as withdrawn.” 4. The reasoned order was passed thereafter by the Registrar of the University on 12th April, 2003, which is Annexure7 to the writ application. The petitioners are relying upon the said reasoned order where it was indicated that on exigencies of work, these persons were engaged on daily wages against unsanctioned posts and subsequently due to non-availability of work their services were terminated. However, much reliance has been placed upon the observation made thereunder, according to which, it was observed that however as and when vacancies exist and posts advertised by the University in future their applications would be considered sympathetically along with other candidates considering their past experience. 5. These petitioners approached this Court in the present writ application thereafter alleging that persons are being regularized as per para 9, 10 and 11 respectively but the cases of the petitioners are not being considered. 6. The affidavits have been filed in the present writ application on behalf of the respondent university. It is the stand of the Respondents University that a decision has been taken in presence of His Excellency the Governor of Jharkhandcum Chancellor of University in the meeting held on 29th September,2011 in respect of the Universities of the State of Jharkhand. According to which the appointment against Grade IV Posts in Government and Semi Government offices is being done away with and in its place appointment shall be made on contractual basis (AnnexureA to the affidavit dated 29th September, 2011, containing minutes of the said meeting). A list is also enclosed as Annexure B, wherein the candidature of the petitioner and others is said to have been considered while preparing the list of persons to be regularized in Grade IV in view of earlier order dated 29th July, 2009, said to have been issued by the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee. Learned counsel for the Respondents University, Mr. Mehta, however, submits that a mere perusal of the list would disclose that while persons named at Serial nos. 1 to 5 have been shown to be working for different periods, the name of some of the petitioners which are contained from serial no. Learned counsel for the Respondents University, Mr. Mehta, however, submits that a mere perusal of the list would disclose that while persons named at Serial nos. 1 to 5 have been shown to be working for different periods, the name of some of the petitioners which are contained from serial no. 7 onwards disclose that they have been disengaged from service much earlier as per the remarks made on the right column i.e. from 16.7.1991 itself. It also 3appears that other documents in respect of these petitioners including appointment letter and the caste certificate were not available with the respondents at the time of preparation of list. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in its rejoinder, has stated that even till December, 2010 some of these petitioners have been regularized in service in Grade IV, but the petitioners' case have been overlooked in an arbitrary and illegal manner. 8. The Respondents State, on the other hand, after being impleaded has also come out with their stands that any appointment can only be made in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and after following the procedure for making such appointment to public post including reservation policy of the State. The University cannot make back door appointment. 9. These facts brought on record, indicate that the petitioners have been engaged for certain period under University from 19891991 but had approached this Court in the year 2001 by way of a previous writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2389 of 2001, which was disposed of without getting into the merits vide an order dated 4th April, 2002, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners and dispose of it by a reasoned order. The reasoned order which is enclosed to the writ petition at Annexure7 itself discloses that these persons were engaged on daily wages basis against unsanctioned post and were terminated on non-availability of work in the year 1991 itself. Much reliance, however, has been placed upon the observation of the Registrar that as and when vacancies exist and posts advertised by the University in future their applications would be considered sympathetically. 10. However, these observations were made in the year 2003 and much water has flown thereafter. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs. 10. However, these observations were made in the year 2003 and much water has flown thereafter. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs. Uma Devi and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , has categorically held that appointment to public post must be made following the mandate prescribed under the Constitution by giving equal opportunity to all concerned. It has further deprecated the tendency to make regularization of employees not originally appointed in a legal manner or through following required procedure of advertisement inviting applications from all eligible persons. 11. These facts which are borne on record, however, only portray picture that the petitioners had only been engaged as daily wages for a period of 2 years till 1991 and since their disengagement they have never been in the service or under engagement of the Respondents University. 12. In these facts and circumstances and also taking into account the stand of the respondents in view of the decision of the Chancellor of the University of Jharkhand, the petitioners do not make out a case for any direction or writ for consideration of their cases of regularization/absorption under the Respondents Universities. The writ application is accordingly dismissed.