Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 851 (MP)

Dalveer Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2022-06-24

SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI

body2022
ORDER 1. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 28.5.2021 (Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No. 3 whereby the application of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Peon (Class-IV) has been rejected. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of the case are that the petitioner has been working on the post of Chowkidar (Kotwar) since 4.6.1990 in Patwari Halka Lalitpur, Tehsil Amarpatan, District Satna. Looking to his continuous long service, the respondents have assured him on various occasions that he shall be considered for regularization, but no orders what so ever was passed till date. Since, the petitioner was not regularized for a long period, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 21057/2018 which was disposed of vide order dated 10.9.2018 by passing the following order:- “In the circumstances, this petition is disposed off with a direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation along with all the relevant documents before the Collector, Satna/respondent No. 3 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and if such a representation is submitted by the petitioner, the same shall be decided by the Collector, Satna/ respondent No. 3 in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of submission of representation along with certified copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.” 3. In compliance, the respondent No. 3- Collector decided the representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order dated 28.5.2021 and rejected the claim of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking regularization of his service. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that the reasons assigned for rejecting the representation is that the Chowkidars/Kotwars are appointed in accordance with the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 section 230. Neither the Kotwars are appointed against a regular sanctioned post or as contingency paid employee nor there are any rules for appointing such Kotwars. Even there are no circulars of the Government to regularize the Kotwars on the post of Peon (Class-IV). The Kotwars are paid remuneration as per section 231 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. Neither the Kotwars are appointed against a regular sanctioned post or as contingency paid employee nor there are any rules for appointing such Kotwars. Even there are no circulars of the Government to regularize the Kotwars on the post of Peon (Class-IV). The Kotwars are paid remuneration as per section 231 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. They are also allotted certain amount of service land so that they can cultivated the same and earned money. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner has no right to be regularized. The petition is absolutely misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any provision under which a Kotwar can be regularized. In absence of any provision under the MPLRC, the respondent/State cannot be directed to regularize the petitioner on the post of peon (Class-IV). The representation filed by the petitioner has been rightly rejected assigning valid reasons. As such no interference is called for by this Court in exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed at this admission stage itself.