Tulsiram Sahu and Others vs State of Chhattisgsarh and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to consider them for grant of appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the order dated 29/3/1995 (Annexure P/1) the petitioners were selected for appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III for the academic sessions 1995. Thereafter, for the next session, their services were discontinued.

Sole contention of the petitioners is that one of the similarly situated person namely Ridhram Sahu (petitioner No. 4 in this petition also), had approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in the year 1998 and by order dated 9/1/1998, it was directed to consider his case having regard to his past experience and performance. One more person namely Santosh Kumar Kashyap approached this Court in the year 2005. This Court by order dated 26/4/2005 having considered the facts of the case, directed Santosh Kumar Kashyap to apply for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III and thereafter it was directed to consider his case.

The petitioners have preferred the present petition after a period of 15 years seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioners on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III.

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh as well as this Court in the above stated cases have not granted any postitive directions to appoint the petitioners therein on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade - III. In the first case it was directed to consider and in the second case it was directed to the petitioner therein to make an application for consideration of his case.

After 2006 the legal position has changed. Now, it is well settled principle of law that a temporary, ad hoc, employee/daily wager or contract appointee cannot claim regularization, continuance or reinstatement in service on the basis of appointment, which was temporary and not in accordance with law and the same was de hors the constitutional scheme of employment. (See Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi (3) and Ors.; Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2; Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Ors.; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Surjit Singh and Ors. and State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Ganapathi Chaya Nayak and Ors.).

It is a case where the petitioners have slept over their right since 1995 till date i.e. for about 15 years, hoping or expecting that they may be entitled to the same relief which has been granted earlier to other similarly situated persons.

With regard to laches and delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court, the Supreme Court in the matter of U.P. Jal Nigam and Anr. v. Jaswant Singh and Anr. observed as under:

The question of delay and laches has been examined by this Court in a series of decisions and laches and delay has been considered to be an important factor in exercise of the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. When a person who is not vigilant of his rights and acquesces with the situation, can his writ petition be heard after a couple of years on the ground that same relief should be granted to him as was granted to person similarly sitated who was vigilant about his rights and challenged his retirement which was said to be made on attaining the age of 58 years. A chart has been supplied to us in which it has been pointed out that about 9 writ petitions were filed by the employees of the Nigam before their retirement wherein their retirement was somewhere between 30-6-2005 and 31-7-2005. Two writ petitions were filed wherein no relief of interim order was passed. They were granted interim order. Thereafter a spate of writ petitions followed in which employees who retired in the years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005, woke up to file writ petitions in 2005 and 2006 much after their retirement. Whether such persons should be granted the same relief or not?

The ratio laid down in the aforesaid case has been reiterated in State of Punjab and Anr. v. Balkaran Singh; Tridip Kumar Dingal and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. and Yunus (Baboobhai) A Hamid Padvekar v. State of Maharashtra.

Further, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief on any ground, and particularly, seeking appointing on the basis of their selection which even otherwise, does not give any statutory or legal right. (See: Ludhiana Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Amrik Singh and Ors. and Union of India and Ors. v. Kali Dass Batish and Anr.).

Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief and the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself.