1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

O R D E R

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1270/2007

(Raghu Raj Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

Date of Order

:

28/03/2007

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR

Mr. Prakash Sharma for the petitioner.

BY THE COURT:-

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

By the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks his

regularisation on the post of Village Secretary. During the course

of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded

that there is no sanctioned post of Village Secretary, but the

petitioner has been serving on the post since last 10 years.

In Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors. Vs. Uma

Devi (3) & ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1, held as under:-

“It was then contended that the rights of the

employees thus appointed under Articles 14 and

16 of the Constitution, are violated. It is stated

that the State has treated the employees

2

unfairly by employing them on less than

minimum wages and extracting work from them

for a pretty long period in comparison with

those directly recruited who are getting more

wages or salaries for doing similar work. The

employees before us were engaged on daily

wages in the department concerned on a wage

that was made known to them. There is no

case that the wage agreed upon was not being

paid. Those who are working on daily wages

formed a class by themselves, they cannot

claim that they are discriminated as against

those who have been regularly recruited on the

basis of the relevant rules. No right can be

founded on an employment on daily wages to

claim that such employees should be treated

on a par with a regularly recruited candidate,

and made permanent in employment, even

assuming that the principle could be invoked for

claiming equal wages for equal work. There is

no fundamental right in those who have been

employed on daily wages or temporarily or on

contractual basis, to claim that they have a

right to be absorbed in service. As has been

held by this Court, they cannot be said to be

holders of a post, since, a regular appointment

could be made only by making appointments

consistent with the requirements of Articles 14

and 16 of the Constitution. The right to be

treated equally with the other employees

employed on daily wages, cannot be extended

to a claim for equal treatment with those who

were regularly employed. That would be

treating unequals as equals. It cannot also be

relied on to claim a right to be absorbed in

service even though they have never been

selected in terms of the relevant recruitment

rules. The arguments based on Articles 14 and

16 of the Constitution are therefore overruled.”

Therefore, keeping in view the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors.

Vs. Uma Devi (3) & ors. (supra), there being no sanctioned post

3

of Village Secretary, the petitioner cannot claim regularisation on

the said post. I do not find any ground to interfere in the

inherent jurisdiction. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

(H.R.PANWAR),J.

RP.