\\ BEFORE THE STATE ADMINISTRATiyE_TRIBDNAL RAIPUR O.A. N0. /2001 L^pC^^^l^ JAIPAL SINGH SARPE S/o Sbri B.R. Sarpe aged about 40 years Peon/Guard Industrial Training Institute Mahasamund (C.G.) Aoplicants Versus Govt. of M.P. through the Secretary *'V^S^"^^^S&<f Department Vallabb Bhavan • Bhopal Govt. of Chhattisgarh through the Seci-etary Technical.. Educstion and ^^^^^^£^~^\c^'^^:^:-^~ ~_~~ ^~~~r__ , IBnBsie" ®&ssausB* Department D.K.S. Bhavan Raipur (C.G.) Joint Director (Training) Industrial Training Institute Raipur (C.G.) Principal Industrial Training Institute Mahasamund (C.G.) ^...-S.IU^T 'ilsd loday..^-l:.^:^sl__ Aj/ 5,')rf-.M.:.S..(a.',)A^L.4c(' for ttegfsiraf, M. r. Stsie At!m. Trituaal. RAirUR <? ! ffi; Npn-ap&li^ant s liH;:i!!Bj ORIGINAL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBDNAL ACT 1985 :\'° ^lf I^HCQURTLQFCHHATTISGARH^BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. Writ Petition (Sl N0.3602^005 PETITIONER: Jaipat Singh Sapre Versus RESPONDENTS: Govt. of M. P. and others F^^PRQNOUNCMENT QF QRDER lAanindta "^e sd/L ..,WVvastava ^oVian' '"*.„ ,—^' - '.f~ c^'L^' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: Writ Petition (Sl No.3602/2005 Jaipat Singh Sapre Versus Govt. of M. P. and others Present: Shri Manish Sharma, counsel for the petftioner. Shri Ajay Dwwedi, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State/respondente. ORDER (Passed on J^April, 3)10) Thfe petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing legality and valklity of order dated 31-03-2000 (Annexure A-1) by whfeh, services of the petitioner have beenterminated. (2) Petitroner was initially appointed as Daily wage emptoyee vide order dated 31 - 12-1994 (Annexure A-2). Case of the petitioner is that his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Durg and he was informed by the selection committee whereupon he was appointed vide order dated 26-( -1998 (Annexure A-5) on a vacant post under regular establishment on one year's probation. Grievance of the petittoner is that in view ofthe government lettere dated 28-01-2000 and 29-01-2000, his services were terminated by order dated 31-03-2000 (Annexure A-1)on the ground that his regularization was irregular. (3) Submission of teamed counsel fbr the petitfoner is that though demanded copies ofgovemment tetters dated 28-01-2000 and 29-01-2000 were not supplied. \^ ^S-TB©-rm- Ci ^ 1.- Termination of the services of the petitioner was without justification based on hire and fire poltey and without any reason which vtolated his constituttonal rights. He aiso submitted that the said order oftermination was passed without affbrding opportunity of hearing and it was theretore in violation of principles of naturat justice. (4) Per contra, submissfon of learned counsel fbr the respondents is that the petitioner was appointed on Daily wage basis though there was a ban on appointment vide government circular datedOI-04-1987. It has been denied that the appointment of the petftioner was in accordance with valid and legal procedure for r^ular appointment. Subsequently, another reply was filed on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4 on 15-02-2008, wherein it has been stated that the termination of the petitioner was based on government's policy decision that ftose daily wagers who were appointed after 31-12-1988 were to be terminated as they were not entitted for regularization. In view of the government circular dated 15-09-1989, no fresh appointment could be made. This was followed by another circular dated 02-02-2000 to the effect that services of the daily wage employees who were appointed after 31-12-1988 were to be terminated. The govemment had also issued various circular dated 14-02-2)00 and 26-02-2000 directing that all Daily wage emptoyees appointed after 31-12-1988 whether they were working as Daily wagers or they had been irregularly regularized were to be removed from the servfce. Director of Employment and Training had issued various circulars dated 20-01-2000, 14-02-2000, 18-02- 2000, (B-03-2000 and 27-03-2000 collectively vide Annexure R-4 for terminating services ofthe daily wage emptoyees appointed after 31-12-1988. (5) From the pteadings and material awilabte on record, it is found that the initial appointment of the petitioner was contrary to government's directfon and guidetines and wthout following any constitutional procedure. TTtis was ctearly a back-door . . f--' 1. entiy. This back-door entry was sought to be regularized by constituting a regularization committee and regularizing the petitioner. It has not been establfehed by the petitioner that he was granted regular appointment by following the recruitment rules prescribed for reguter appointment. H'K initial appointment was as a daily wage unskilled Majdoor. He along with other daily wage emptoyees was regularized vide order dated 26-06-1998 (Annexure A-5) whteh does not show that this regutar appointment was made after invtting applications and following due constitutional procedure. It has neither been pteaded nor demonstrated that such appointment on the post of Peon (Chowkidar) was in accordance with the recruitment rules prescribed for the post. (6) As the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis and later on regularized in service without due process of recruitment and without following constituttonal procedure, petitioner is not entttled to any relief in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, Govemment of Andhra Pradesh and others vs. K. Brahmanandam and others, (2008) 5 SCC 241 and Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and ottiers, (2008) 10 SCC 1. (7) The petttion is therefore dismissed. No orders as to cost. sAl-^^^a' ^^ ^v(»» TL1MANE ^^^»^^6