Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 19 (UTT)

Budhi Lal v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-01-05

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, VIPIN SANGHI

body2023
JUDGMENT Vipin Sanghi, CJ. - The present Special Appeal is directed against the order dated 27.08.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the appellant's writ petition. 2. In the writ petition, the appellant had challenged the order passed by the Chief Education Officer, Rudraprayag, rejecting his representation seeking appointment on a Group D post. The appellant was appointed as a casual Class-IV employee in Government Inter College, Saurakhal, District Rudraprayag in the year 1992, where he served in that capacity till 14.05.1994. Thereafter, his services were discontinued. Three years later, in the year 1997, according to the appellant, two other persons were engaged to discharge the duties of Group D employees. Three years after the said engagement, and six years after the appellant's disengagement, the appellant preferred WPSS No. 438 of 2020, which was disposed of with liberty to the appellant to make a representation. He then made his representation, which was rejected by the Chief Education Officer, Rudraprayag. That rejection was assailed in the writ petition in question. 3. The learned Single Judge did not find merit in the appellant's petition, and disposed of the same by observing as follows:- ' Petitioner's claim for appointment has been rejected on two grounds (i) at the relevant point of time when petitioner was engaged in Government Inter College Saurakhal, District Rudraprayag had not come into existence and the said School was under the control of District Inspector of Schools Tehri Garhwal, therefore, petitioner should have made representation to the Competent Authority in District Tehri Garhwal; (ii) as per the Government Policy contained in Government Order dated 24.03.2011, no new appointments can be made on Group 'D' post. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's engagement was discontinued for ulterior motives in order to engage some other person in place of the petitioner. He further submits that person, who was engaged in place of the petitioner, has now been regularized in service; while, petitioner is without any employment. It is not in dispute that new appointment on Group 'D' post has been banned by the State Government in view of declaration of cadre of Group 'D' employees to be dying cadre. He further submits that person, who was engaged in place of the petitioner, has now been regularized in service; while, petitioner is without any employment. It is not in dispute that new appointment on Group 'D' post has been banned by the State Government in view of declaration of cadre of Group 'D' employees to be dying cadre. Petitioner had staked claim for appointment as Group 'D' employee, therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order in view of provision contained in Government Order dated 24.03.2011, whereby ban has been imposed for making new appointment on Group 'D' post. Even otherwise also, petitioner did not challenge his disengagement/termination, made in the year 1997 and the claim raised by the petitioner for his re-appointment, is belated, however, there is no explanation for delay and laches. In such view of the matter, there is no scope for interference in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. However, it is provided that if any work and post is available for engagement of petitioner as an outsourced employee in Education Department, then his claim for such engagement shall be considered by respondent no. 5, as per law, if petitioner makes a representation for the purpose.' 4. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that after the appellant's disengagement in 1994, the respondent made appointment of two others, as Group D employees, while ignoring him. 5. We do not find any merit in this submission. The appellant accepted the discontinuation of his casual employment on 14.05.1994. It is not that an employer should chase, and find out as to where the erstwhile casual employee is and to invite him to take up casual employment again years after his casual employment is ended. If this submission of appellant were to be accepted, it would mean that every employer would be obliged to maintain a complete record of the casual employee who may have, at some earlier point of time, served in that organisation, and to also keep a track of where he may be, and before an offer of employment is made to such an employee, no other person can be engaged. If the submission is accepted, it would become impossible for an organisation to meet its day to day requirements of casual employees. If the submission is accepted, it would become impossible for an organisation to meet its day to day requirements of casual employees. Merely because the respondent granted casual employment to two other persons, as Group D employees, three years after the appellant's disengagement, that could not give rise to a justified grievance in the appellant. We also find force in the finding returned by the learned Single Judge that he could not have been appointed in a Group D post, since that is a dying cadre. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed. 7. Since we have dismissed the appeal on merits, we are not going into the aspect of delay.