Mukesh Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4004 MP

                                  1                                 WA-499-2021
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                    WA-499-2021
        (MUKESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)


Gwalior, Dated : 05-08-2021
      Heard through Video Conferencing.

      Shri Alok Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri Ankur Mody, learned Additional Advocate General for
respondent/State.

This intra- court appeal u/S.2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha

Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, assails the final order dated 25.02.2021 by which learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition in question filed u/Art.226 of the Constitution by which following prayer had been made:-

"(i) The order impugned Annexure P/1 may kindly be quashed;

(ii) Respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of petitioner and pay him all the difference of arrears.

Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in

the facts and circumstances of the case same may kindly be granted to the petitioner."

The learned Single Judge after considering all aspects of the matter has held that the appointment of the petitioner as a daily wager part time employee in 2001 was illegal and not irregular. The distinction between an illegal appointment and irregular appointment has been explained by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka VS. Uma Devi, [(2006) 4 SCC 1] and also in the circular, Annexure A-6, dated 16.05.2007 issued by the State Government pursuant to the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court and clarified by the subsequent circular dated 08.02.2008 which has been brought on record along with IA.No.6694/2021.

One of the major grounds on which a particular appointment is held to be illegal is want of post at the time of making of appointment on daily-wage 2 WA-499-2021 or of any nature.

The very fact that petitioner/appellant was appointed on a part-time basis is ample proof of the fact that he was not appointed against any vacant sanctioned post.

In view of the above, the finding of learned Single Judge that

appointment of petitioner is illegal, and therefore, no benefit under the verdict of Uma Devi (supra) and circular of the State Government dated 16.05.2007 is available to him, cannot be found fault with.

Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

                   (SHEEL NAGU)                              (DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
                      JUDGE                                               JUDGE


               ms/-




MADHU
SOODAN
PRASAD
2021.08.06
12:23:17 -07'00'