Sankadeep Sahu and ors Vs. Ranchi University Ranchi and ors - Court Judgment

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI L.P .A.No.93of2013 1.SankadeepSahu 2.BudhuaOraon 3.RamSwaroopSahu 4.MahadeoOraon 5.RamKishunSahu 6.SunderLalSahu 7.KailashSahu 8.JitPahanOraon 9.SohraiOraon 10.KrishnaKumarSahu 11.SheoKumarHembrom 12.AnandHembrom ... ... Appellants Versus 1.RanchiUniversity,Ranchi 2.TheViceChancellor,RanchiUniversity,Ranchi 3.TheRegistrar,RanchiUniversity,Ranchi ... ... Respondents CORAM :HONEBLETHEACTINGCHIEFJUSTICE :HON'BLEMR.JUSTICESHREECHANDRASHEKHAR FortheAppellants :Mr.A.K.Sahani,Advocate FortheRanchiUniversity :Mr.AmitKumarSinha,Advocate th 06/Dated:16 August,2013 PerD.N.Patel,A.C.J.

1. Thisappealhasbeenpreferredagainstthejudgmentandorder passedbythelearnedSingle Judge inW.P.(S)No. 4915of2005 dated11thFebruary,2013.

2. Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellantshaveworkedfromtheyear1989,approximatelyfortwo years and other employees have been regularised into the service, whereastheseappellantshavebeendiscriminated.Thisaspectofthe matterhasnotbeenproperlyappreciatedbythelearnedSingleJudge and hence, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judgedeservestobequashedandsetaside.

3. WehaveheardthecounselfortherespondentRanchiUniversity, who has submitted that in fact, the appellants are the original petitioners and they were never the employees of the Ranchi University. Infact,theyhaveworkedintermittentlyforacoupleof daysintheyear1989and1990andthewritpetitionwaspreferredin theyear2005,i.e.,afterapproximatelyonequarterofacenturyand thereisagrossdelayandnoexplanationisgiveninthewritpetition. Hence,thereisnolegitimaterightvestedintheseappellants(original petitioners) to get their services regularised. They were also appointedonadailywagesagainsttheunsanctionedpost,lookingto the exigencies of the work, but, in fact, they were never regularly employedbytheRanchiUniversity.Everymanagementisinneedof suchtypeofdailywagerslookingtothenatureofwork,but,thedaily wagersappointedforaparticularworkcannotgivethemrighttobe absorbedontheregularpostandthattoo,whennosuchsanctioned posts are available. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciatedbythelearnedSingleJudgeandhence,thisLettersPatent AppealmaynotbeentertainedbythisCourt.

4. Havingheardthecounselforboththesidesandlookingtothe facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the judgment deliveredbythelearnedSingleJudge,weseenoreasontoentertain thisLettersPatentAppealmainlyforthefollowingfactsandreasons: (i)Itisthehighestcaseoftheseappellantsthatthey haveworkedforapproximately2yearsintheyear, 19891990 as argued by the counsel. Looking to thesefacts,itappearsthattheseappellants,whoare originalpetitionershaveworkedonlytomeetwith some exigencies with the Ranchi University as a dailywagers. Theyhaveneverworkedagainstthe sanctionedpost. (ii) Duetononavailabilityofthework,theywere notengagedaftertheyear,1991asobservedbythe learnedSingleJudgeininternalpageno.3ofthe order.Thus,writpetitionwaspreferredintheyear, 2005 after approximately 25 years by these daily wagersforgettingtheirservicesregularised.Infact these appellants (original petitioners) have no legitimaterightvestedinthemtogettheirservices regularisednorthereisanylegalobligationonthe partoftherespondentstoregularizetheservicesof theseappellants.Inabsenceofsuchstatutoryright, noerrorhasbeencommittedbythelearnedSingle Judge in dismissing the writ petition preferred by these appellants and we also see no reason to entertainthisLettersPatentAppeal because of the aforesaidreasons.

5. Therefore,thereisnosubstanceintheLettersPatentAppealand hence,thesameisherebydismissed. (D.N.Patel,A.C.J.) (ShreeChandrashekhar,J.) Manish/Amit