Vimla Devi Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.

Vimla Devi vs The State of M.P. and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jul 05, 2012

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1039397

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1039397
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Jul 05, 2012
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vimla Devi

Respondent

The State of M.P. and ors.

Excerpt

.....by shri pandey have filed reply and it is pointed out that petitioner was appointed as a daily wage employee initially for a period of 89 days by the then principal of the polytechnic and thereafter the appointment continued for sometime. it is pointed out that the principal has illegally appointed the petitioner inspite of the fact that there was ban on appointment and the principal had not taken the concurrence of the competent authority. it is stated that when this irregularity was found, the impugned action is taken. according to the respondents appointment of the petitioner is not after following any due process of law. it is an illegal appointment contrary to the recruitment rules 2 and as the appointment is on daily wage basis for 89 days, for various periods, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. shri b.p.pandey, learned counsel, invites my attention to the law laid down by the supreme court in the case of secretary, state of karnataka and others versus umadevi (3) and others.(2006) 4 scc 1.and points out that not in the light of the aforesaid, no interference is called for. having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the records, it is clear that petitioner was a daily wage employee and was appointed initially for a period of 89 days. there is nothing available on record to show that appointment of the petitioner was in accordance to the rules and after following the procedure contemplated for regular appointment in accordance with the recruitment rules. on the contrary is seen to be made by the principal without due authority that also at a time when the state government had banned appointments. taking note of all these factors and keeping in view the law laid down by the supreme court in the case of umadevi (supra).no interference into the matter is called for. accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. (rajendra menon) judge aks/-

Full Judgment

05.07.2012.

Shri Mrigendra Singh for the petitioner.

Shri B.P.Pandey, Deputy Government Advocate, for respondents 1 to 3.

Challenging the order-dated 13.9.2002, by which appointment of the petitioner as a daily wage employee has been terminated, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

According to the petitioner she belongs to the scheduled caste category and on the basis of an application submitted by her she was appointed by the Principal, Polytechnic College Waidhan, initially for a period of 89 days vide order-dated 4.7.2001.

The service initially for 89 days was extended on 15.10.2001, 27.12.2001, 3.4.2002 and 29.6.2002 and while the process of considering her case for regularization was pending, the impugned action is taken.

Interalia contending that petitioner had submitted an application alongwith various other persons for appointment and after due scrutiny of her application she has been appointed by the Principal, and not her termination when the process of regularization is going on, is illegal, this writ petition has been filed.

Respondents represented by Shri Pandey have filed reply and it is pointed out that petitioner was appointed as a daily wage employee initially for a period of 89 days by the then Principal of the Polytechnic and thereafter the appointment continued for sometime.

It is pointed out that the Principal has illegally appointed the petitioner inspite of the fact that there was ban on appointment and the Principal had not taken the concurrence of the competent authority.

It is stated that when this irregularity was found, the impugned action is taken.

According to the respondents appointment of the petitioner is not after following any due process of law.

It is an illegal appointment contrary to the recruitment rules 2 and as the appointment is on daily wage basis for 89 days, for various periods, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

Shri B.P.Pandey, learned counsel, invites my attention to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Umadevi (3) and otheRs.(2006) 4 SCC 1.and points out that not in the light of the aforesaid, no interference is called for.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the records, it is clear that petitioner was a daily wage employee and was appointed initially for a period of 89 days.

There is nothing available on record to show that appointment of the petitioner was in accordance to the Rules and after following the procedure contemplated for regular appointment in accordance with the recruitment rules.

On the contrary is seen to be made by the Principal without due authority that also at a time when the State Government had banned appointments.

Taking note of all these factors and keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra).no interference into the matter is called for.

Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2012 Same Parties Vimla Devi vs The State of M.P. and ors. Same Subject Land Acquisition