Full Judgment
1 D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.32/2014 Tikam Chand V/s State and ORS.14.5.2014 Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Amitava Roy Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vijay Bishnoi Mr.Anil Kaviraj for the appellant.
The judgment and order dated 21.10.2013 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.11048/2013 dismissing the appellant-writ- petitoner's challenge to the order dated 19.12.2011 passed by the Director, Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur constitutes the subject matter of scrutiny in the instant appeal.
We have heard Mr.Anil Kaviraj, learned counsel for the appellant-writ-petitioner.
Briefly stated the facts relevant are that according to the appellant-writ-petitioner, he was appointed as a Cook with the above referred Department in the year 1996 on a daily wage basis and has continued as such since then and has been rendering satisfactory services.
As inspite of his blemishless and uninterrupted services over the years he was not regularized, he approached this Court with S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2983/2004 which was disposed of on 2.8.2004 with the direction to the respondents therein to consider his case for regularization as per the scheme of the department concerned.
He again returned to this Court with S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3635/2011 with the grievance that his case had not still been considered.
On this, by 2 the order dated 27.4.2011, this Court directed the respondents therein to consider his case for regularization in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka V/s Uma Devi and ORS.(2006 SCC(4)
1) as well as the relevant Rules through the screening committee.
As inspite thereof the respondents were found to be lukewarm in the matter, the appellant-writ-petitioner instituted S.B.Civil Contempt Petition No.430/2011.
In the reply filed therein, the respondents arrayed in the said proceedings referred to the order dated 19.12.2011 passed by the Director, Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur to the effect that following consideration of his case, he could not be regularized as he was not found to be eligible in terms of the norms prescribed therefor and further, not only he had not been appointed against the sanctioned post, there was no such post to accommodate him.
Contending that this decision was incompatible with the letter and spirit of the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 27.4.2011 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3635/2011, the appellant-writ-petitioner sought the annulment thereof and also prayed for a direction for regularization of his services.
By the impugned judgment and order, to reiterate, the reliefs prayed for have been declined.
Mr.Kaviraj has emphatically argued that in the factual background which clearly demonstrates that the appellant-writ- 3 petitioner had been rendering continuous and satisfactory services since 1996, the rejection of his claim for regularization on the grounds as enumerated in the order dated 19.12.2011 is wholly untenable and thus, the learned Single Judge has erred in declining to grant him the reliefs prayed for.
Having continued the appellant-writ-petitoner as a Cook, it was impermissible for the respondents to deny him regularization of his services on the ground of non-availabiilty of a regular sanctioned post, he urged.
Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nihal Singh & ORS.V/s State of Punjab and ORS.(AIR 2013 SC3547.
We have scrutinized the pleaded facts and the documents on record.
The arguments advanced have also been duly assessed.
The order of appointment of the appellant-writ-petitioner is not on record.
Admittedly, however, he, as claimed by him, in the year 1996 was appointed as a Cook with the respondent- department on daily wage basis.
That he is continuing as such is also an undeniable fact.
In the earlier proceedings instituted by him, noticeably, this Court had only directed consideration of his case for regularization as per the dictum in Secretary, State of Karnataka V/s Umma Devi (supra) as well as the norms prescribed therefor by the relevant Rules.
A plain perusal of the order dated 19.12.2011 would reveal that in compliance of the judgment and order dated 27.4.2011 passed by this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3635/2011, the concerned screening committee had 4 considered the case of the appellant-writ-petitioner for regularization of his services on the basis of the norms prescribed including inter-alia whether (i) he had been appointed on temporary basis against a regular sanctioned post; (ii) he had completed 10 years of service as on 1.4.2006 without any intervention by a Court of law; and (iii) he had been rendering uninterrupted services.
The order further discloses that on a consideration of all relevant records it was noted that on the date of engagement of the appellant-writ-petitioner on 1.12.1996 by the mess committee of the State Ambedkar Hostel, there was no sanctioned post of Cook and that on 1.4.2006 he had not completed 10 years of service.
That he was not appointed against the regular sanctioned post of Cook was also recorded.
His case for regularization was thus rejected.
On an overall consideration of the materials on record as well as the contents of the order dated 19.12.2011 of the Director, Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, we do not feel persuaded to hold that the case of the appellant-writ-petitioner was not considered for regularization of his services in accordance with the letter and spirit of the judgment and order dated 27.4.2011 passed by this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3635/2011.
Instead, this order demonstrates that all relevant factors not only have been noted, but also have been applied to take the impugned decision.
The facts in Nihal Singh V/s State of Punjab (supra) are distinctly 5 different.
In that case, the initial appointments of the appellants had been in accordance with the statutory procedure prescribed by Section 17 of the Police Act, 1861 in order to cater to the exigencies by providing necessary security to public sector banks which agreed to bear the financial burden arising out of such employment.
It was in this singular background that a direction was issued to the State of Punjab to regularize the services of the appellants by creating necessary posts.
No analogy from these facts can be drawn to sustain the challenge of the appellant-writ- petitioner.
We find ourselves in the attendant facts and circumstances of the case in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
The appeal lacks in merit and is dismissed.
(Vijay Bishnoi)J.
(Amitava Roy)CJ Parmar