AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.K. Maheshwari, J.—This is the second round of litigation.
WP.Nos. 4332/2013 and 4334/2013 have been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 29.04.2011 and W.P.No. 15790/2014 has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 20.3.2013, by which the claim of the petitioners seeking regularization on the post of Ayurved Compounder has been rejected.
It is to be noted here that in the first round of litigation this Court has directed that the case of the petitioners shall be considered in the light of the order dated 20.02.2009 passed in W.P.No.6046/2007-Dinesh Gupta v. State of M.P. and Ors. and order dated 10.05.2010 passed in W.P.No. 5440/2010-Rajesh Patel v. State of M.P. and Ors. In furtherance to the said directions orders impugned have been passed by the Directorate of Ayush which have been assailed in these petitions.
Petitioners inter-alia contend that the case of Dinesh Gupta (Supra) as well as Rajesh Patel (Supra) are similar to the case of the petitioners as their appointment was not based on special recruitment drive as they do not belong to the Categories of SC, ST, OBC. In such circumstances, impugned orders passed by the Directorate of Ayush rejecting the claim of regularization from their initial contractual appointment, is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, the orders impugned may be quashed.
It is said that the action of the respondents is discriminative from the aforesaid two persons which is apparent from the information supplied under Right to Information Act indicating that 12 persons of general category have been extended benefit of regularization from their initial appointment.
In view of the foregoing, it is urged that the impugned orders may be set aside and appropriate direction to regularize them from the date of initial contractual appointment may be issued.
The respondents have filed their reply inter alia contending that similar plea was raised by the petitioners before the Indore Bench but, rejecting such plea in a bunch of writ petitions, the issue as involved in the present case has been decided.
The order dated 10.09.2013 passed by Bench Indore in W.P.No. 4170/2011-Suchit Kumar Choukade v. State of M.P. and Ors. has been brought to the notice of this Court inter alia contending that the case of the petitioners is not distinguishable from the aforesaid cases of the Indore Bench. It is stated that against the judgment of learned single Judge writ appeal has not been preferred, therefore, the order passed by the coordinate Bench has become absolute. However, the prayer as made in the writ petition cannot be granted and all these three petitions may be dismissed.
After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the facts of this case, it is apparent that the petitioners were appointed on contract basis and they are claiming regularization under the Government Policy. The orders of regularization of the petitioners have been passed but the relief as sought for is to extend such benefit from retrospective date i.e. from their initial date of contractual appointment. The similar issues have been considered by the Indore Bench in Suchit Kumar Choukade (Supra). The relevant part of the order is reproduced as under:
"6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2005. It is also an admitted fact that certain persons, who were appointed against the backlog vacancies, have been regularised with retrospective effect (one Sunil Kumar Joshi, Smt. Sunita Gupta, etc.,), whereas the case of the petitioner was not a case of filling up the backlog vacancies. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2005 and only on completion of about 4 years'' service, he has been regularised by an order dated 26.2.2009. As no statutory provisions of law has been brought to the notice of this Court warranting regularization of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment. This court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be granted the benefit of regularization with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 2005 in absence of any statutory provisions of law and also no executive instructions has been brought to the notice of this Court, the question of regularization of the petitioner with initial date of appointment does not arise. Hence, the prayer of the petitioner is turned down. The writ petition is dismissed.
In other connected matters, some of the petitioners have been appointed prior to enactment of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Sambida Seva (Bhartiya Chikitsha Paddati, Unani Tatha Homeopathy) Niyam, 1999, however facts remain that even those persons were not appointed along with the petitioner. No advertisement has been filed to establish that those appointments were also not against the backlog vacancies and therefore, once a distinguishing feature is in existence, it cannot be said that the petitioners are identically placed persons and are also entitled for regularization with retrospective effect and this Court does not find any reason to issue any direction to the respondents to regularise the petitioners in the other identical matters with retrospective effect. Hence, all the connected writ petitions are also dismissed.
No order as to costs."
Considering the aforesaid, in my considered opinion the plea of discrimination as raised with Dinesh Gupta (Supra) has been duly considered by the Coordinate Bench. Therefore, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are bereft of merits.
It is to observe here that the order of Suchit Kumar Choukade (Supra) applies mutatis mutandis to these petitions. Therefore, I am not inclined to take different view from the aforesaid order of the learned Coordinate Bench which squarely applies to these petitions.
Accordingly, these petitions are devoid of merits, hence, dismissed.