SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Chh) 96

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, N.K. CHANDRAVANSHI, JJ.
Paramjeet Singh S/o. Late Narayan Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. - Respondents
WA No. 61 of 2019
Decided On : 23-02-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Raghavendra Pradhan.
For the Respondents:Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Sudeep Verma.

Point of Law: When an appointed person possesses all the requisite qualification but the prescribed procedure for appointment had not been followed, such appointment is termed as irregular appointment.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 - Section 91 - Chhattisgarh Public Services (Reservation for Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 - Appeal against order passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition, whereby writ petition filed by appellant was dismissed - Claim of petitioner in writ petition is for directing to respondents to consider claim of petitioner for regularization on post of Assistant Grade – III – Despite completion of two years of probation, he had not been regularized and was also not granted increment on ground that appellant had not submitted a pass certificate of Data Entry Operator/Programming with speed of 5000 key depression per hour.

Finding of the court:

Argument is advanced by respondent that appellant had not assailed order and same having attained finality, this writ petition merits dismissal - Court finds no substance in argument - Appellant, in writ petition, had stated about dismissal of appeal by order and copy of said order was also annexed - True, in prayer portion, order has not been put to challenge - But then, a litigant cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence or inadvertence - In instant case, having brought on record all antecedent facts, in prayer portion, prayer for setting aside order was not made - It is a lapse, which cannot be attributed to appellant - A writ court will not be tied-down by technicalities or rules of procedure, which are intended to be a handmaid to administration of justice - It is always open to writ court to grant, mould or restrict relief in a manner most appropriate to situation before it in such a way as to advance interest of justice - Order of learned Single Judge cannot be sustained.

Result: Writ petition is allowed

JUDGMENT :

Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

Heard Mr. Raghavendra Pradhan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Sudeep Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. This appeal is presented against order dated 05.12.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 8005 of 2018, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge reads as follows:

    “1. The claim of the petitioner in the present writ petition is for directing to respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization on the post of Assistant Grade – III.

2. After perusal of the records and the contention of the writ petition it would reveal that the petitioner does not have the minimum qualification which is required for appointment to the post of Assistant Grade III. This Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition only on this ground. The claim for regularization can only be considered in respect of a person who otherwise has all the requisite qualification and eligibility criteria required for the post to which he is claiming regularization. The regularization can never be granted ignoring the minimum qualification eligibility prescribed under the Service Rules.

3. Given the facts, this Court does not find any case made out by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.”

3. The case of the appellant, as presented in the writ petition, is that he was appointed (no date mentioned) as a daily-wage employee for clerical works on ‘Collector Rate’ by the Project Officer, District Rural Development Agency (for short, DRDA) and he continued to work as such till 31.01.2000. By an order dated 31.01.2000, issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh, his service was terminated and on a challenge being made in Original Application No.1724/2000 before the State Administrative Tribunal, the termination order was set aside and he was reinstated in service. After rendering 14 years of service, he filed Writ Petition (S) No. 4969 of 2009 and the said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 03.09.2009 providing that if the appellant makes a representation, such representation shall be decided in accordance with law. Thereafter, he filed a representation dated 03.11.2009 before the respondent No. 2 for regularising his service on his post on and from 05.03.2008 in terms of a circular dated 05.03.2008 issued by the State Government to regularise the services of the daily-wage employees. On consideration of the said representation, the respondent No. 2 appointed him to the post of Assistant Grade III (for short, AG-III) by issuing an order dated 06.01.2010 and a condition, being condition No 6, was imposed to the effect that he shall have to pass examination in Hindi Typewriting @ 25 words per minute. Despite the completion of two years of probation, he had not been regularised and was also not granted increment on the ground that the appellant had not submitted a pass certificate of Data Entry Operator/Programming with speed of 5000 key depression per hour. It is pleaded that clause 3 of the circular dated 05.03.2008 issued by the General Administration Department provided that if any employee had the requisite qualification prior to 31.12.1997 and fulfills the criteria of that post, he shall be regularised on that post. It is stated that he had fulfilled conditions of the post he was holding. It is pleaded that as the appellant crossed the age of more than 45 years, he is exempted from passing examination in Hindi Typewriting in view of notification dated 29.01.1983; that the appellant had submitted certificates regarding passing of Hindi and English Typewriting at the time of his appointment as daily wage employee; that the appellant had submitted certificate of experience as a Typist-cum-Clerk for the period from October, 1991 to January 1994 and from Apr

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top