Prabhati Lal Gurjar vs State of Raj. and Others

Veerender Singh Siradhana, J.—This is second round of litigation by the petitioner with a prayer for a direction to the State-respondents, to accord him appointment on the post of Class-IV employee in the back drop of the judgment rendered in the case of Ram Pratap v. State of Rajasthan in SBCWP No. 6351/1990, decided on 9th October, 1991 and Prabhati Lal Gurjar v. State of Raj. and Ors in SBCWP No. 2434/1994, decided on 13th September, 1995.

Briefly, the indispensable skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised are that the petitioner filed SBCWP No. 2434/1994 (Prabhati Lal Gurjar v. State of Raj.and Ors.), which was decided along with the analogous matters on 13th September, 1995, with a direction to the respondents to consider their candidature on preferential basis, whenever new vacancies are sought to be filled by them. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that in the year 1996, he submitted an application for consideration of his candidature for appointment to the State-respondents. However, he was not accorded appointment. The petitioner has further pleaded that he was in the employment of the State-respondents, as a Class-IV employee with effect from 25th November, 1990 to 23rd March, 1991. A certificate to this effect, was also issued on 7th September, 1993, (Annexure A/1).

Neither the petitioner nor the counsel has put in appearance to prosecute the writ petition.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents and carefully perused the pleadings and the materials available on record.

Along with the writ application, the petitioner has placed on record a certificate issued to him, reflecting his engagement for the period of in fact 25th November, 1990 to 20th March, 1991, on daily wages basis @ 22 per day. A Coordinate Bench of this Court while adjudicating upon the case of the petitioner along with the analogous matters vide judgment and order dated 13th September, 1995; disposed off the writ applications, observing that in case whenever new vacancies are filled up, the candidature of the petitioner(s), shall be considered on preferential basis, in the event, they applied for.

From the facts stated in the memo of the writ application and materials available on record, it is not reflected that the petitioner ever submitted the application for consideration of his candidature for appointment to the post of Class-IV employee, in the year 1996. The instant writ proceedings were instituted in the year 2005. No reasons for the extra ordinary, undue and inordinate delay of almost 9 years have been furnished.

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, learned Government Counsel, appearing on behalf of State-respondents, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the counter affidavit asserted that the petitioner did not submit his candidature, while the recruitment process was undertaken in the year 1996, in compliance of the direction issued by the High Court in the case of Ram Pratap and other analogous matters; as would be reflected from office order 6th September, 1996.

Learned counsel referring to Para 6 and 7 of the reply emphasised that the petitioner did not submit his candidature, and therefore, appointment could not be accorded to him. Moreover, the very fact of the petitioner did not approach this court even after appointments were accorded to the persons similarly situated vide order dated 6th September, 1996, further substantiates the fact that the petitioner did not participate in the recruitment process for reasons best known to him. It was only after having learnt about the appointments to other similarly situated persons, he has instituted the writ proceedings after an abnormal delay of 9 years. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on that count alone for it suffers with the vice of delay and laches.

The matter of appointment on daily wages basis and regularization has been considered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court time and again. The controversy has been set at rest by the Hon''ble Apex Court of the land, in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, , wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court held thus:--

"53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in Para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State-Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub-judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme." 10. In the instant case at hand, the earlier writ application, preferred by the petitioner was disposed off, vide order dated 13th September, 1995, with a direction to the State-respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner and similarly situated persons, in the event any process of recruitment was undertaken, and their cases were to be considered on preferential basis, in the event, they submitted their candidature.

Though the petitioner has made a statement in the writ application for having submitted his candidature in the year 1996, but has not furnished necessary details of the application with reference to the date and its submission to the concerned authority. No relevant material has been placed on record to substantiate the fact that in fact he participated in the recruitment process in the year 1996. In absence of any factual foundation laid and necessary material facts and particulars pleaded, to draw an inference, as sought for by the petitioner, in the writ application; such an inference cannot be drawn in absence of those essential material facts and particulars in support thereof.

The writ application, relating to the cause of action, if any, that accrued in the year 1996, was instituted in the year 2005; after an inordinate, abnormal and undue delay of almost 9 years. No reasons for the abnormal and undue delay of 9 years have been pleaded. Moreover, the writ application involves seriously disputed questions of facts, which cannot be adjudicated upon in the writ proceedings.

For the reasons and discussions herein above, the writ petition is devoid of any substance, and lacks in merit, and therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

Ordered accordingly.

No costs.