Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bisan Singh Dawar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 January, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2593
1 WP-2141-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 31st OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 2141 of 2025
BISAN SINGH DAWAR AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shashikant Chandravanshi - advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Madhusudan Dwivedi - Advocate for respondent No.2 and 3.
Ms.Pranjali Yajurvedi - PL for State.
Ms.Naina Mishra - Advocate on behalf of Shri Himanshu Joshi -
Advocate for respondent No.4.
ORDER
The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India challenging the advertisement Annexure P/6 dated 9.12.2024 in respect
of recruitment of 1044 posts of Line Attendant (Distribution), Trainee
(Level-IV).
Counsel for petitioners argued that the petitioners are working on
contract basis as Line Attendant for about last 12-14 years and, therefore, the
petitioners ought to have been regularised on the said post and thereafter the
said post would have been filled by the respondents.
Counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 submitted that the respondents
have already provided relaxation in age to the contract employees working
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2593
2 WP-2141-2025
with them and also reserved 50% post advertised on the said post. He has
referred Clause 2.5 and 3.6 of the advertisement.
Counsel for petitioners vehemently argued that since they are working
for last 12-14 years, therefore, they have a right to be regularised. In
support of his submission he has placed reliance on a judgment in the case of
Jaggu Vs. Union of India SLP No.5580/2024 decided on 20.12.2024 .
Admittedly, the petitioners are working on contractual basis and they
have failed to produce any statutory Rule or any Circular of the respondents
for regularisation of their services. The regularisation of an employee in
service is governed by either the statutory Rule or by any Circular of the
employer. Since they have failed to show any provision of law for
regularisation of their services, therefore, the relief for regularisation is
rejected. So far challenge to the advertisement is concerned, the respondents
have already provided the relaxation in the age for contractual employees
working with them providing the same as 55 years and further in Clause 3.6
they have reserved 50% posts for such contractual employees.
The judgment relied by the learned counsel for petitioners does not
render any assistance to them. The said case was arising out of the
termination of a contract employee and not of regularisation of a contract
employee. He has referred to para 27 of the judgment of Jaggo (supra)
which reads as under:-
"27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is
imperative for government departments to lead by example in
providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a
temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles
are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2593
3 WP-2141-2025
international labour standards but also. 'exposes the organization
to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring
fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the
burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold
the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to
embody. This approach aligns with international standards and
sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby
contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the
country."
Upon perusal of the aforesaid para, we find that in the present case, the
employer has already provided age relaxation to the contract employees by
enhancing age to 55 years to participate in the selection and also reserved
50% posts for them. Thus, there is no unfair practice on the part of the
employer in the present case.
In view of the aforesaid, this court does not find any merit in the
petition. The petition is dismissed, however, it would be open for the
petitioners to apply for the said posts in pursuant to the advertisement.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
VM
