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

2004 Supreme(Raj) 1789

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.
Hari Ram Dindor - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 4359 of 1999.
Decided On : 29-11-2004

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. N.K. Vyas, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. B.L. Tiwari, Dy. G.A.

Headnote:

A. Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 16 - Rajasthan Rural Development and Panchayati Raj State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1998, Rule 6, Schedules I & II Held regularization of post can only be done where there is continuation of the post for a long period of time- one cannot claim regularisation on particular post while working on another post ignoring the Rules and norms of appointment.

B. Rajasthan Rural Development and Panchayati Raj State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1998, Rule 6, Schedules I & II Held according to bifurcated rules- posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) in Group B of Schedule II and are to be filled in only by direct recruitment not by promotion.

JUDGMENT

1. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 21.10.1999 with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to regularise the services of the petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer (Diploma) Civil with effect from 1.3.1997.

2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows :

The petitioner passed Diploma in Civil Engineering from Vidhya Bhawan Rural Institute, Udaipur in the year 1986 and a copy of the certificate is marked as Annexure 1 and he has also got man-power registration in the year 1987, which was as such renewed upto June 2000 as is evident from certificate Annexure 2.

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of Junior Engineer-cum-Supervisor on 1.3.1997 at Devli Talab under Panchayat Samiti, Salumbar and, thereafter, he was working continuously on the said post and he was paid wages according to the rate prescribed under B.S.R. 1996 or at the rate of Rs. 120/- per day.
The further case of the petitioner is that for the period from 1.3.1997 to February, 1998 he was being paid wages according to muster roll as he had worked in different programmes conducted by the Panchayat Raj Department.The further case of the petitioner is that thereafter, the Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Salumber (respondent No. 5) vide order dated 2.3.1988 (Annexure 3) granted sanction in favour of the petitioner for the post of Supervisor on the basis of job cards and the petitioner was directed to work under the guidance of Junior Engineer on Enikato Construction Work. According to the petitioner, thereafter, he was continuously working on the post of Supervisor-cum-Junior Engineer on the basis of job cards and copies of some of the job cards are marked as Annexure 4 and 5 respectively and as per job cards, wages were given to him according to BSR 1996 or at the rate of Rs. 120/- per day.The further case of the petitioner is that he had worked under the respondent-Department on the basis of job cards upto 31.12.1998 and thereafter, he was again appointed on the basis of muster roll from 1.1.1999 and thereafter, he was continuously working on the post of Supervisor-cum Junior Engineer at different places at different works conducted by the respondent No. 5 Panchayat Samiti, Salumber under the Junior Engineer of the Panchayat Samiti, Salumber. The details of work done by the petitioner from 1.1.1999 are marked as Annexure 6.The further case of the petitioner is that though he was continuously working on the post of Supervisor-cum Junior Engineer since 1.3.1997 satisfactorily, but despite that, he was not given the regular pay scale of Junior Engineer and he was only paid Rs. 120/- per day according to BSR 1996.The further case of the petitioner is that one post of Junior Engineer was lying vacant in the respondent-Department and since he has been continuously working with the respondent Department satisfactorily, therefore, he has a preferential right to that post of Junior Engineer and thus, he made a request to the respondent-Department for regularising his services on the said post of Junior Engineer (Civil). However, the same was not accepted by the respondents and according to the petitioner, by not accepting his request regularization, the respondents had acted arbitrarily and their action is wholly illegal and that has infringed his legal right, which had accrued in his favour stated above.During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has filed second stay application on 19.5.2004 stating that services of the petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer were not regularised by the respondents on the pretext that no vacancy was available, but on the contrary, through advertisement Annexure 11 dated 21.2.2004, the respondents are going to fill in up 170 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) and therefore, a further prayer was made by
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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