At, High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
By, THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. DHANANJAYA YASHWANT CHANDRACHUD & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA
For the Appellant: Suresh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: --------.
1. This special appeal is directed against a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18 October 2006 by which a petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution has been dismissed. The appellant before the Court was a daily wager who had worked as a Peon under the Board of Revenue from 15 August 1980 till 31 October 1983 and again from 1 April 1984 till 31 December 1986. On 1 July 1983, the appellant submitted a representation to the Secretary, Board of Revenue for his regularisation on
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
the ground that several persons junior to him were appointed on the regular post of Peon. The appellant again filed a representation dated 17 August 1985 and eventually filed a writ petition (Writ Petition No. 1242 of 1987) seeking regularisation in service. During the pendency of the writ petition, he was served with an order dated 2 March 1987 stating that he had been dispensed with from service with effect from 25 February 1987. The appellant amended the said writ petition to challenge the legality of the order of termination. The petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 6 November 1989. The Division Bench noted the submission of the appellant that persons who had been appointed subsequent to the appointment of the appellant as daily wage workers had been regularised in spite of which his representation had not been disposed of. The Division Bench held that non-consideration of the representation of the appellant was arbitrary and allowed the writ petition by directing that the representation made by the appellant shall be considered and disposed of within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of the said order. In pursuance thereto, by a communication dated 13 March 1990, the appellant was informed that there was no provision for regularisation under the rules but his case for regular appointment was considered by the Selection Committee and he was not found suitable for regular appointment. This led to the institution of the second writ petition [Writ Petition No. 5704 (S/S) of 1998] which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 18 October 2006. The learned Single Judge has held that the appellant who was a daily wage employee was not found suitable for appointment, hence his services were terminated and since he was not found fit and suitable, he could not have been regularised.
2. The facts of the present case would indicate that in the writ petition which the appellant filed after the decision of 13 March 1990 was communicated to him, two reliefs were sought. Firstly, the appellant sought a writ of mandamus for regularisation of his services as Peon with retrospective effect from the date persons junior to him had been regularised. Secondly, the appellant sought to challenge the order dated 13 March 1990 by which his representation was rejected as he was not found fit for regular appointment. The second writ petition was filed on 14 December 1998, about eight years after the communication dated 13 March 1990 by which the appellant was informed that he was not found suitable for regular appointment. In fact, even the challenge to the order dated 13 March 1990 was brought in by way of an amendment application in pursuance of an order dated 1 April 1999. In this background, it is evident that the case of the appellant claiming regularization was duly considered and he was informed on 13 March 1990 that he had not been found suitable for regular appointment. The writ petition filed by the appellant claiming regularisation, as we have noted earlier, was filed after a significant delay of nearly eight years after the decision was communicated to him. But, it has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the termination of his service on 25 February 1987 was not lawful and proper since that may have been motivated by the filing of the earlier writ petition on 18 February 1987. Such a case was not set up by the appellant either in the first writ petition or for that matter in the second writ petition which has culminated in the impugned order.
3. As a matter of fact, in the second writ petition which the appellant filed, there was no challenge to the order of termination at all. A regularisation of service can be claimed by an employee who is in service. The services of the appellant had been dispensed with by his own showing on 25 February 1987. In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the case of the appellant for regularisation was duly considered by the Selection Committee which did not find him to be fit and proper for regular appointment. No factual foundation has been laid in the pleadings for impugning the decision of the Selection Committee on the ground that it was arbitrary or mala fide. When the appellant himself waited for well over eight years to file a writ petition seeking regularisation of his service after the decision of 13 March 1990 and did not challenge the order of termination, no substantive relief could have been granted to him by the learned Single Judge. For these reasons, we find no merit in the special appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.