Uttarakhand High Court
Budhi Lal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 5 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
JUSTICE SHRI ALOK KUMAR VERMA
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2023
5th JANUARY, 2023
Budhi Lal ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ......Respondents
Presence: -
Mr. Tarun Prakash Singh Takuli, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
State.
JUDGMENT: (Per Shri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)
The present Special Appeal is directed against
the order dated 27.08.2022, passed by the learned Single
Judge, dismissing the appellant's writ petition.
2. In the writ petition, the appellant had
challenged the order passed by the Chief Education
Officer, Rudraprayag, rejecting his representation seeking
appointment on a Group D post. The appellant was
appointed as a casual Class-IV employee in Government
Inter College, Saurakhal, District Rudraprayag in the year
1992, where he served in that capacity till 14.05.1994.
Thereafter, his services were discontinued. Three years
later, in the year 1997, according to the appellant, two
other persons were engaged to discharge the duties of
Group D employees. Three years after the said
engagement, and six years after the appellant's
disengagement, the appellant preferred WPSS No. 438 of
2020, which was disposed of with liberty to the appellant
to make a representation. He then made his
representation, which was rejected by the Chief Education
Officer, Rudraprayag. That rejection was assailed in the
writ petition in question.
3. The learned Single Judge did not find merit in
the appellant's petition, and disposed of the same by
observing as follows:-
"Petitioner's claim for appointment has been rejected on
two grounds (i) at the relevant point of time when petitioner
was engaged in Government Inter College Saurakhal, District
Rudraprayag had not come into existence and the said School
was under the control of District Inspector of Schools Tehri
Garhwal, therefore, petitioner should have made
representation to the Competent Authority in District Tehri
Garhwal; (ii) as per the Government Policy contained in
Government Order dated 24.03.2011, no new appointments
can be made on Group 'D' post.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's
engagement was discontinued for ulterior motives in order to
engage some other person in place of the petitioner. He
further submits that person, who was engaged in place of the
petitioner, has now been regularized in service; while,
petitioner is without any employment.
It is not in dispute that new appointment on Group 'D' post
has been banned by the State Government in view of
declaration of cadre of Group 'D' employees to be dying
cadre. Petitioner had staked claim for appointment as Group
'D' employee, therefore, this Court does not find any reason
to interfere with the impugned order in view of provision
contained in Government Order dated 24.03.2011, whereby
2
ban has been imposed for making new appointment on Group
'D' post.
Even otherwise also, petitioner did not challenge his
disengagement/termination, made in the year 1997 and the
claim raised by the petitioner for his re-appointment, is
belated, however, there is no explanation for delay and
laches.
In such view of the matter, there is no scope for
interference in the matter.
Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
However, it is provided that if any work and post is available
for engagement of petitioner as an outsourced employee in
Education Department, then his claim for such engagement
shall be considered by respondent no. 5, as per law, if
petitioner makes a representation for the purpose."
4. The submission of learned counsel for the
appellant is that after the appellant's disengagement in
1994, the respondent made appointment of two others,
as Group D employees, while ignoring him.
5. We do not find any merit in this submission.
The appellant accepted the discontinuation of his casual
employment on 14.05.1994. It is not that an employer
should chase, and find out as to where the erstwhile
casual employee is and to invite him to take up casual
employment again years after his casual employment is
ended. If this submission of appellant were to be accepted,
it would mean that every employer would be obliged to
maintain a complete record of the casual employee who
may have, at some earlier point of time, served in that
organisation, and to also keep a track of where he may
be, and before an offer of employment is made to such an
3
employee, no other person can be engaged. If the
submission is accepted, it would become impossible for an
organisation to meet its day to day requirements of casual
employees. Merely because the respondent granted
casual employment to two other persons, as Group D
employees, three years after the appellant's
disengagement, that could not give rise to a justified
grievance in the appellant. We also find force in the
finding returned by the learned Single Judge that he could
not have been appointed in a Group D post, since that is a
dying cadre.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any
merit in this appeal, and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
7. Since we have dismissed the appeal on merits,
we are not going into the aspect of delay.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dated: 5th January, 2023
SK/SB
