Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1746 (JHR)

Babita v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-08-06

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
JUDGMENT S.N. Pathak, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioners have prayed for a direction upon the respondents to regularize their services who are working under the respondents on the post of Ward Servants for a period of about 30 years to the satisfaction of the respondents. Petitioners have further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to make payment of their salary and allowances at par with the salary and allowances which is paid to the Ward Servants working in the Institute of Technology at Muzzaffarpur in terms of Order dated 26.09.1988, passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3375 of 1988. 3. It is case of the petitioners that they have been rendering their services as Ward Servants in B.I.T. Sindri for a period of about 30 years or more but the respondents are not regularizing their services. The petitioners through their Association named as "Ward Servant Association, Bihar Institute of Technology, Sindri" had moved before the Hon''ble Supreme Court vide Civil Appeal No. 3375 of 1988 for a direction upon the respondents to regularize their services. The said Appeal was disposed of vide order dated 26.09.1988 with a direction upon the respondents to pay the Ward Servants of B.I.T. Sindri the salary and allowances at par with the salary and allowances paid to the Ward Servants working in the Institute of Technology at Muzzaffarpur, Bihar with effect from 01.10.1988 and further direction was made to the respondents to prepare a Scheme for regularization of services of Ward Servants who have been in service for more than one year in the said Institute, within a period of six months. In compliance of the order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, a meeting was held on 24.10.2000 by constituting a Committee and a Resolution was passed for regularization of Ward Servants. Vide letter no. 523, dated 19.03.2007, issued by the Principal Secretary to the Director, B.I.T. Sindri, a direction has been given for regularization of services of Ward Servants on vacant Class-IV posts. Grievance of the petitioners is that in spite of direction of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and letter issued by the Director, B.I.T. Sindri, their services have not been regularized though they are still discharging their duties without any complaint. Grievance of the petitioners is that in spite of direction of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and letter issued by the Director, B.I.T. Sindri, their services have not been regularized though they are still discharging their duties without any complaint. Petitioners have filed several representations but the respondents are sitting tight over the matter and as such, they have knocked door of this Court. 4. Mr. Shekhar Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners are regularly discharging their duties to the full satisfaction of the respondents and pursuant to the letter no. 523, dated 19.03.2007, issued by the Principal Secretary to the Director, B.I.T. Sindri, a direction has been given for regularization of services of Ward Servants on vacant Class-IV posts, but the services of the petitioners have not yet been regularized. Learned counsel strenuously urges that the petitioners are entitled for the salary and allowances which is paid to the Ward Servants working in the Institute of Technology at Muzzaffarpur in terms of the Order dated 26.09.1988, passed in Civil Appeal No. 3375 of 1988 by the Hon''ble Apex Court. Learned counsel further submits that the assignment of duties to the Ward Servants is made by General Warden through the Hostel Superintendent who maintains the Attendance Register of the Ward Servants. The payment of wages to the Ward Servants is made from the Students'' Funds with respect to their teaching fee in B.I.T. Sindri, their Registration Fee, Examination Fee and other fee. Some of the Ward Servants have already been regularized on the sanctioned and vacant posts. Lastly it has been argued that at least a direction be given to the respondents to consider case of the petitioners who are having qualification of Class-VIII passed. 5. Per contra counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents - Institute submits that appointment of the petitioners had never been made in pursuance of any advertisement issued by the BIT, Sindri or any other agencies competent to make such appointment rather they had been engaged by the students residing in the hostel of the Institute. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents - Institute submits that appointment of the petitioners had never been made in pursuance of any advertisement issued by the BIT, Sindri or any other agencies competent to make such appointment rather they had been engaged by the students residing in the hostel of the Institute. Learned counsel further submits that pursuant to direction of the Hon''ble Apex Court, Scheme was framed whereby a district panel was prepared in the year 1992 in terms of the Government of Bihar, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar, which petitioners and other Ward Servants were empanelled for the purpose of absorption in Class-IV posts subject to fulfillment of minimum criteria. The Ward Servants who were higher in ranking had been absorbed and taken into regular service on Class-IV posts. The remaining ward servants who were not absorbed or were not found to be suitable for absorption due to non-fulfillment of minimum eligibility criteria. The basic criteria was subsequently modified vide Letter No. 3577, dated 25.04.1997 wherein specific guideline has been made for appointment towards vacancy on Class-IV employees. Subsequent thereto, fresh panel had been prepared in the year 2006 in which name of the petitioners were empanelled all over again for their absorption but they did not fulfil minimum basic criteria as per rule and hence could not be absorbed. The Scheme for regularization had been formulated by the district administration and the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad had prepared a district panel and appointments have been made in the district panel after holding examination. Petitioners and Others either did not appear in the examination or they have failed and as such, they cannot claim regularization. It has further been argued that a number of writ petitions had been filed by the Ward Servants against the panel prepared by the respondents authorities, which had been disposed of on 11.12.2013 by a common order in W.P.(S) No. 4215 of 2008 and other analogous cases. In compliance of direction of the order of this Court, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad reviewed the entire matter and passed a reasoned order and communicated to the petitioners under Memo No. 182, dated 07.03.2014 rejecting their claims. In compliance of direction of the order of this Court, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad reviewed the entire matter and passed a reasoned order and communicated to the petitioners under Memo No. 182, dated 07.03.2014 rejecting their claims. Against reasoned order, the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 4215 of 2008 and other analogous cases filed a fresh writ petition vide W.P.(S) No. 1984 of 2014, which was dismissed by Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court on 19.09.2016. Learned counsel further submits that there is no Scheme for regularization of service of the ward-servant. The authority letter no. 523, dated 19.03.2007 authorising the Director, BIT Sindri to make appointment for Class-IV posts by formulating rules and regulations has already been withdrawn by the State Government by issuance of order no. 1303, dated 09.06.2008. The ward-servant serving in the State of Bihar cannot claim the benefits given to the similarly situated employees in the Institute of Technology, Muzafarpur in the State of Bihar. This writ petition has no merits and deserves dismissal. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused records. the petitioners have failed to bring on record anything to show that petitioners are possessing minimum qualification. It is a clear case where petitioners had not been appointed against any sanctioned and vacant post nor the posts were ever advertised. Since petitioners had been discharging their service for continuous long period, they had been given due opportunity and the successful persons had been absorbed in accordance with law. Since petitioners could not fulfil requisite minimum criteria, a direction cannot be passed to absorb them against sanctioned vacant post. The Hon''ble Division Bench, vide Order dated 19.09.2016 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1984 of 2014 has clearly observed as under: "These petitioners are not having minimum qualification prescribed for Class IV employees. Moreover, at the relevant time, these petitioners were never appointed in pursuance of the public advertisement and hence, they are back door entrants." In the instant case, the petitioners could not come out with a case that they possess requisite qualification and fulfill all the criteria and as such, I do not find any merits in this writ petition. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.