SBCWP NO.313/1995– SURENDRA KUMAR V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. . : JUDGMENT DTD. 18.11.2008 1/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.313/1995 Surendra Kumar versus State of Rajasthan and ors. PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI None present, for the petitioner Mr.R.Dave, for the respondents. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 18th November, 2008. JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsels for the respondents. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has claimed his appointment to the post of LDC with the respondent State Insurance and Provident Fund Department. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed on daily wages basis as LDC in the first instance on 29.5.1985 and worked as such upto 31.7.1986. His SBCWP NO.313/1995– SURENDRA KUMAR V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. . : JUDGMENT DTD. 18.11.2008 2/5 appointment was for a fixed period and expired on 31.7.1986. On the basis of judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Surendra Kumar V/s State of Rajasthan SB CWP No.36/1989 decided on 24.2.1993 relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Kumar V/s State of Rajasthan reportedin 1993 AIR SC 115, the petitioner claimed that his candidature should also be considered for appointment on regular basis as LDC. 4. These averments have been denied and disputed by the respondents in their reply and they submitted that in pursuance of decision of this Court cited above, the case of the petitioner was considered, but he could not be appointed as there was no vacant post of LDC in Pali office of State Insurance and Provident Fund Department and those who were appointed were regularly selected by the RPSC and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any parity with them. The directions of this Court in the case of Surendra Kumar is quoted below: “A large number of writ petitions were filed by such employees serving in the Rajasthan State Insurance and Provident Fund Department and some of the matters SBCWP NO.313/1995– SURENDRA KUMAR V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. . : JUDGMENT DTD. 18.11.2008 3/5 were taken up before the Supreme Court. The Controversy has been resolved by the decision given in the case of Surendra Kumar v/s State of Rajasthan reported in 1993 AIR SC 115. All the contentions of the petitioners were overruled, however, while parting with the Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “In our view, it is only just and proper if a pragmatic and sympathetic consideration is made in respect of the appellant and the other petitioners in the Special Leave Petitions so that if they have got the requisite qualifications like similarly circumstanced persons being eligible for appointment and / or regularisation they also should be considered for appointment and for regularisation against the available vacancies so that useful service rendered by them in past may get a proper recognition. It is reasonably expected that the State Government should give an anxious and sympathetic consideration to the appellant and the petitioners in the Special Leave Petitions in the SBCWP NO.313/1995– SURENDRA KUMAR V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. . : JUDGMENT DTD. 18.11.2008 4/5 matter of appointment in the available vacancies according to the seniority and the length of service rendered by such persons as Daily rated Lower Division Clerks in the said State Insurance and Provident Fund Department by making appropriate provisions. With the aforesaid observations, Civil Appeal No.833 of 1986 and the Special Leave Petitions Nos. 6597-6607 of 1986 and 12528 of 1986 are disposed of without any order as to costs.” Therefore, the present writ petition is also disposed of in the light of the above observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court.” 2. Since the case of the petitioner was considered and he was not found eligible to be appointed as LDC, this court cannot direct by way of mandamus to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as LDC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent decision in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka V/s Uma Devi reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806 has deprecated this practice of back door entry in the SBCWP NO.313/1995– SURENDRA KUMAR V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. . : JUDGMENT DTD. 18.11.2008 5/5 employment and directions of Courts for regularizing such adhoc or daily rated workers. As far as right to be considered is concerned, the respondents have admittedly considered the case of the petitioner in terms of the judgment cited above and therefore, mere non- appointment on the post of LDC cannot be faulted. The writ petition is thus, found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. Item No.7 Ss/-