Ku. Yamuna Bai vs State of M.P.

R.S. Jha, J.—Heard Shri Y.M. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission.

The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 21-2-2014 (Annexure P-7) by which the petitioner''s claim for regularisation has been rejected with an observation that as and when vacancies arise, the petitioner shall be given preference while considering the applications for the concerned post.

It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner that the petitioner has been working as a daily wage Aaya in Government Nehru Hospital, Burhanpur since 1997 and while her juniors have been considered and granted regularisation, the petitioner''s claim has been ignored. It is submitted that the petitioner had previously filed a writ petition which was registered as W.P. No. 5207/2011(S) and was disposed of by this Court by order dated 29-2-2012 with a direction to the respondent/authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation. It is stated that subsequent to the directions issued by this Court the impugned order has been passed denying regularisation to the petitioner. Hence this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected totally ignoring the fact that she has been working since 1997 in the establishment of the respondents and that vacancies are available. It is stated that the direction of this Court to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner for regularisation has also not been properly complied with.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record it is observed that by the document, Annexure P-4, dated 5-7-2010, the petitioner had been informed that the services of the petitioner were being taken as a cleaner on payment of Rs. 50/- per day by the Rogi Kalyan Samiti and that she was not working on the post of Aaya. The concerned authority, in such circumstances, has stated that the question of recommending the case of the petitioner for regularisation does not arise.

Quite apart from the above, on a specific query being made it is fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not engaged on the post of Aaya on daily wages by following any procedure or pursuant to any advertisement or selection process and, therefore, even otherwise her engagement is illegal as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, . As the petitioner''s engagement is illegal, the question of claiming parity with those who have been granted regularisation also does not arise in view of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and Others, .

In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order dated 21-2-2014 (Annexure P-7) rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularisation. However, as the authorities have themselves stated in the order that the petitioner would be given preference in future appointments, the authorities are directed to do so and in case future appointments are made, the petitioner may be given preference as stated in the order dated 21-2-2014 (Annexure P-7).

With the aforesaid observations the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of.

C.C. as per rules.