Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kishan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 June, 2021
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP.8992/2021
Kishan Singh v. State of M.P. and Ors.
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Gwalior, Dated : 14.06.2021
Shri Ameen Khan Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Varun Kaushik, Counsel for the respondent/State.
The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of
Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
"A. that, the respondent authorities may
kindly be directed to regularize the services of the
petitioner in the light of the policy formulated by
the State Govt. in the interest of justice.
B. that, the representation submitted by the
petitioner may kindly be decided in a positive
manner with directions to regularize the services of
the petitioner as per their entitlement in the interest
of justice.
C. Or any other direction in the nature of writ
under Article226 of the Constitution of India.
D. Cost of the petition may also be
awarded."
It is the case of the petitioner that on 01/10/1996 he was
appointed as daily wager and has worked on the post of Cook/Water
Boy/Watchman. It is submitted that in spite of fact that the petitioner
worked efficiently, but his services were discontinued in the year
2000 and the petitioner was once again appointed in Adamjati
Kalyan Vibhag in the year 2004 and is working for the last more than
10 years as daily wager. It is submitted that some of the similarly
situated persons have been regularized by the respondents. It is the
case of the petitioner that he was appointed on 1.10.1996 and his
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP.8992/2021
Kishan Singh v. State of M.P. and Ors.
services were terminated in the year 2000 and again the petitioner
approached the concerning officer for reappointment and his prayer
was graciously accepted and again he was appointed as daily wager
by order dated 19.7.2004. It is submitted that in spite of repeated
representations made by the petitioner, no heed has been paid and,
accordingly, the petition has been filed seeking the above mentioned
relief.
Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the State that in
the entire petition, the petitioner has not claimed that his services
were not back door entry. It is not the case of the petitioner that
before appointment of the petitioner, public advertisement was issued
inviting applications from General Public. Services of the petitioner
were discontinued on the ground that he was illegally appointed as
daily wager and without considering that aspect, he was given
reappointedt on 19.7. 2004 on the ground that his services were
discontinued without making payment of compensation. The
appointing authority did not consider the fact that original
appointment of the petitioner was illegal and it was a back door entry
as daily wager employee. In the light of judgment passed by the
Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi
reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, the petitioner is not entitled for
regularization.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP.8992/2021
Kishan Singh v. State of M.P. and Ors.
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
In the entire writ petition, it is nowhere mentioned by the
petitioner that initial appointment was irregular or regular but not
illegal. It is not the case of the petitioner that before appointment of
the petitioner as Daily Wager, any public advertisement was issued
thereby inviting applications from similarly situated candidates.
Furthermore, from order dated 19.7.2004 Annexure P/4, it is clear
that services of the petitioner were discontinued on the ground that
his appointment was illegal. However, he was again taken back in
service by order dated 19.7.2004 without adhering to the fact that
whether the appointment of the petitioner was illegal or irregular.
Thus, it is clear that neither in the year 1996 any public
advertisement was issued, nor in the year 2004 any public
advertisement was issued, thereby inviting applications from
similarly situated candidates. According to the respondents,
appointment of the petitioner in the year 1996 was illegal and the
writ petition is completely silent about that aspect. Accordingly in
the light of judgment passed in the case of Uma Devi (supra), this
Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out
warranting issuance of direction to the respondents to consider the
case of the petitioner for regularization.
So far as submission made by the Counsel for the petitioner
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP.8992/2021
Kishan Singh v. State of M.P. and Ors.
that similarly situated persons have been regularized by the
department is concerned, it is suffice to say that the principal of
negative equality is unknown to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of
India.
Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
ar
ABDUR RAHMAN
2021.06.17 11:26:07
+05'30'
