Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sandeep Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 May, 2024

Author: Vivek Agarwal

Bench: Vivek Agarwal

                                                            1
                            IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                  ON THE 9 th OF MAY, 2024
                                             WRIT PETITION No. 13640 of 2015

                           BETWEEN:-
                           SANDEEP DUBEY S/O SHRI KRISHNA KUMAR DUBEY,
                           AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: COMPUTER
                           OPERAT;OR JANPAD PANCHAYAT R/O RAM WARD
                           KANDELI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI GOPAL SINGH BAGHEL - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SECRETARY
                                 MANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    COLLECTOR            NARSINGHPUR DISTT.
                                 NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    C.E.O  JILA   PANCHAYAT,  NARSINGHPUR
                                 NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    C.E.O. JANPAD PANCHAYAT NARSINGHPUR
                                 DISTT. NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                           (SHRI NITIN GUPTA - DEPUTY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
                           STATE)
                           (NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 4)

                                 T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                           following:
                                                             ORDER

This petition is filed being aggrieved of the order dated 27/06/2015 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Narsinghpur District

Narsinghpur on the ground that no post of Computer Operator is available for regularization of the petitioner.

In para 3 of the said order, it is mentioned that all the posts of Peon and Clerk are filled up and, therefore, petitioner's case for regularization cannot be considered.

Shri Gopal Singh Baghel submits that he has filed Annexure P-10 along with the rejoinder which is an information gathered by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act. As per this information given on 1/07/2021, one post of Assistant Grade-III is vacant and, therefore, petitioner who is discharging work of Computer Operator which is equivalent to the post of Assistant Grade-

III, he should have been considered for regularization.

Reliance is placed on the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this High Court in the case of Dhiraj Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. and another 2005 (2) MPHT 20 wherein it is held that services rendered for long period should have been regularized on appropriate post, if not possible as Data Entry Operator, then the direction is given to consider creation of the post of Data Entry Operator.

In the opinion of this Court, this judgment having been passed in the typical facts and circumstances of the case but thereafter the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1 has held that regularization can only be granted when the appointment is against the sanctioned vacant post and is not illegal and without irregularity.

Accordingly, this petition can be disposed of relegating the matter to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Narsinghpur District Narsinghpur to constitute the screening committee in terms of the law laid down by the

Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) and consider the case of the petitioner for regularization against the sanctioned vacant post if other parameters are fulfilled by the petitioner.

Let this exercise be completed within 45 days of receipt of certified copy of this order.

It is also necessary to point out that direction given by the coordinate Bench with regard to creation of the post of Data Entry Operator is dehors the judgment of the Supreme Court where High Court is estopped from passing of such order because creation of post is the administrative function and not the function of the High Court and to that extent, the judgment of the coordinate Bench will be of no assistance to the petitioner.

In above terms, the petition is disposed of.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE vy