ORDER

1. By invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have not assailed any specific order; but, seek a direction to the respondents to regularise/grant regular pay-scale on the post of “Safai Karmchari”.

2. At the outset learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that services of the petitioner No.2 Ashok Verma, who is working on the post of “Tax Moharrir”, has been terminated recently and, therefore, he prayed for withdrawal of the writ petition so far as it relates to the petitioner No.2. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed as withdrawn so far as it relates to the petitioner No.2.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the petitioner No.1 was appointed on the post of ““Safai Karmchari”” after following the due procedure. The respondent No.4 had issued an advertisement dated 25.11.2002 inviting applications for the post of Peon, Tax Moharrir, Pump Operator, Choukidar, “Safai Karmchari” etc. Earlier, the respondent No.4 had passed a resolution in its meeting dated 16.7.2002 and according to the resolution the advertisement was to be issued after due permission from the State Govt. As per the sanction letter issued by the State Govt. dated 20.2.2001 there were four clear vacant posts of “Safai Karmchari”. The petitioner No.1 applied against the clear vacant post and in pursuance to the advertisement dated 25.11.2002 the petitioner was appointed as “Safai Karmchari” on contractual basis vide order dated 25.1.2003 and since then he is continuing to work as “Safai Karmchari” till date. Thereafter, the appointment of the petitioner was extended from time to time with prior approval of the President-in-Council. Looking to the fact that the petitioner has already put in about 18 years of service as “Safai Karmchari”, he made a representation to the competent authority claiming the regularisation as well as regular pay-scale. Vide resolution dated 22.2.2013, annexure P/14, the President-incouncil unanimously decided to grant regular pay-scale /regularisation to those employees who were appointed in accordance with the advertisement dated 25.11.2002 against the sanctioned and vacant post. Thereafter, the resolution dated 22.2.2013 for grant of regular pay-scale/regularisation was turned down by the State Govt. vide letter dated 12.2.2019 on the ground that only those employees are eligible for regularisation who were in service on 10.4.2006 and have completed 10 years of regular service.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner No.1 was appointed purely against the vacant post as indicated in the advertisement dated 25.11.2002 for which a duly constituted select committee was formed. The petitioner was directed to appear before the District Selection Committee and on the decision of the Committee, the petitioner no.1 was appointed on the post of “Safai Karmchari”. The petitioner has completed more than 18 years of regular service without there being any break. As such he is entitled for regularisation. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the State Govt. could not have cancelled the resolution passed by the President-in-council inasmuch as there is no need for sanction by the State Govt. for regularisation of class III and class IV employees. He further submitted that the petitioner does not fall within the purview of section 94(5) of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1961 Act’). For the purpose of convenience, section 94 of the Act is reproduced hereinbelow :-

94. Appointment of staff.-- (1) Every Council having an annual income of five lacs of rupees or more shall subject to rules framed under section 95, appoint a Revenue Officer and an Accounts Officer and may appoint such other officers and servants as may be necessary and proper for the efficient discharge of its duties.

(2) Every Council not falling under sub-section (10 shall, subject to rules