The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Petitioner was entitled to regularisation as Mistry based on the parity with similar instances and the absence of recruitment rules prescribing the qualification for the post of Mistry at the time of the Petitioner's appointment.

JUDGMENT

M. S. Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. V. Shirodkar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. P. Kamat, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the Respondents.

2. The Petitioner claims to have been appointed as Mistry on Nominal Muster Register (NMR) basis in the Public Works Department (PWD), Government of Goa, some time in the year 1979. However, the Petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence in this regard. The Respondents also do not admit this position. However, the Respondents admit that the Petitioner was appointed as Mistry on NMR basis w.e.f. 31st January, 1981. This position is even otherwise evident by Certificate dated 31st May, 2001 issued by the Executive Engineer, WDI which is placed on record as Exhibit P-7 (page 39).

3. The services of the Petitioner were thereafter regularised by the Respondents vide order dated 31st December, 1985. This regularisation order however stated that the Petitioner was being appointed on temporary basis as Supervisor on Workcharged Establishment with immediate effect. Later on by order dated 15th January, 1986, there was Corrigendum issued clarifying that the Petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis as Supervisor and upto a period 28th February, 1986. Notwithstanding the nomenclature of the two orders, it is an agreed position that the services of the Petitioner came to be regularised in the post of Supervisor with effect from 31st December, 1985. This position is also made implicitly clear from the Certificate dated 31st May, 2001 issued by the Executive Engineer, WDI, referred to earlier.

4. It is the case of the Petitioner that some time in the year 2011, he discovered that the employees who had similarly been employed as Mistries on NMR basis and regularised in the lower post of Supervisor etc., on the basis of the representations made by them, were restored to the post of Mistries or Work Assistant as the case may be. Accordingly, the Petitioner instituted Writ Petition No.42 of 2011 before this Court seeking for the similar relief of regularisation in the post of Mistry instead of lower post of Supervisor.

5. Writ Petition No.42 of 2011 was however withdrawn by the Petitioner with liberty to make a representation to the appropriate Authority in respect of the grievances of the Petitioner. This order is to be found at Exhibit P-10 (page 45) of the paper book of this petition.

6. In pursuance of the aforesaid liberty, the Petitioner addressed a representation dated 28th June, 2011 to the Respondents, in which, the Petitioner, cited instances of several persons who placed in similar circumstances, were granted the relief. The Petitioner, also made reference to the decision of this Court in the case of Antonio Peixoto Vs Chief Engineer, WP No.379/1995 dated 17th November, 1998 in support of his cause.

7. It is the case of the Petitioner that the representation dated 28th June, 2011 was not even considered by the Respondents. The Petitioner, has however placed on record the Circular dated 28th July, 2011, in which there is a reference to the receipt of similar representation from several employees. He pointed out that the Circular dated 28th July, 2011, speaks of grievances of similarly placed employees being considered favourably.

8. The Petitioner, made yet another representation on 2nd August, 2011 to the Respondents and since the same was never considered by the Respondents, the Petitioner instituted this petition on 7th December, 2011 seeking inter alia a relief of regularisation in the post of Mistry with effect from 31st December, 1985 or at least with effect from the year 1991 when the services of similarly placed employees came to be regularised.

9. Mr. Shirodkar, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that there is no difference between the case of the Petitioner and several instances referred to by the Petitioner in his representation as well as in this petition. In particular, he pointed out that there is no significant difference in the case of the Petitio