Ku. Alaknanda Sharnagat vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Rajendra Menon, Judge

Seeking their absorption/ appointment in Government service on the ground that petitioners ave worked for certain period of time in connection with census/ election duty, petitioners have filed this petition.

Both the petitioners claimed that they are qualified and are eligible to be appointed as Clerks or Readers in the respondents'' department. It is stated that they possess the requisite qualification including the qualification of having passed the shorthand and typing examination from Maharashtra State Bureau Examination, Pune and contended that in connection with the Lok Sabha which was to be held in the year 1996 they were granted appointment vide orders dated 2.4.96 on the post of Clerks in the pay scale of Rs.950-1530. It is a case of the petitioners that after working for some time they have been removed. Placing reliance on various circulars issued by the State Government as contained in Annexure P/16 a compilation of the Circulars dated 19.7.73, 29.11.1978 and 19.9.1990, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when an employee has worked in connection with election duty or census work, their name has to be included in the list of employees categorized as ''B'' Category and they have to be granted appointment as and when vacancy arises. Inter alia contending that even though in District Shajapur persons similarly situated have been granted regular appointment but in the case of petitioners who have worked in Balaghat in connection with Lok Sabha elections, the benefit of regular service/ Government Service are not granted appointment. Contending that Circulars of the State Government are not being followed and petitioners have not absorbed, this petition is filed.

Respondents have filed the reply and it is pointed out by the respondents that the Circulars referred to by the petitioners have been modified vide Annexure R1 and R/2 dated 16.3.94 and 29.7.1994 and pointed out that in these Circulars it is clearly stipulated that the name of the petitioners are to be considered when vacancies arises and 30% post is granted by giving preferential appointment to these persons as and when vacancies arises but on the ground that they have worked earlier, petitioners cannot claim any other benefit in accordance to the Circulars dated 16.3.94 and 29.7.94 Annexures R/1 and R/2 and no mandamus for regularizing the petitioners or absorbing them can be granted.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record it is clear that Circulars in question only contemplates provision for granting priority in selection process and not to give any appointment or absorption to the petitioners. That apart appointment has to be undertaken in accordance to the Recruitment Rules and now in the light of law laid down in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, this Court cannot issue any mandamus for appointment of the petitioners.

Accordingly, for the present no case is made out in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra). Liberty is granted to the petitioners to seek benefit of Circulars, if any, on the basis of which they can be considered for appointment.

With the aforesaid liberty to the petitioners finding no case for issuing any direction to appoint/ absorb the petitioners, this petition is dismissed.