1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1893/2000 Radheyshyam Kumawat vs. The Speaker, Rajasthan Vidhan Sabha, Jaipur Date of order : 8/7/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri S.P. Sharma for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Goyal for the respondent. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner way back in the year 2000 with the prayer that the respondents be directed to grant him permanent status of Class-IV employee as per the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1992. The petitioner was engaged intermittently on the payment of consolidated salary in different spheres as and when the Legislative Assembly was in session. According to the schedule of the petition, the petitioner in all worked for 539 days starting from 2.9.1997 till 16.10.1999 and each time with break of few days. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while the petitioner was lastly engaged upto 16.10.1999, he was 2 not reengaged when the next assembly session was held, whereas those working with him were reengaged. Reference was made to the appointments of Jai Singh Bhati, Birbal Raag, Bardi Narain Meena, Mahipal Singh Bhati, Ramlal Gurjar. The petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition placed on record orders of these persons; namely Jai Singh Bhati, Birbal Raag, Bardi Narain Meena, Mahipal Singh Bhati, Ramlal Gurjar, out of which, Jai Singh Bhati, Birbal Raag, Bardi Narain Meena were regularised by order dated 11.10.2000 and Mahipal Singh Bhati, Ramlal Gurjar by order dated 6.2.2001. Shri S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner therefore prayed that the respondents have to follow the provisions of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act and even otherwise the principles contained in that provision are implicit in Article 16 of the Constitution of India which provides that if a person is working from before, he has to be given preference for re- employment. For the mere reason of the fact that the persons referred to above were continued in service, they had the advantage 3 to be considered for regular appointment or eventually regularized. Action of the respondents is therefore wholly arbitrary and illegal and therefore the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner also for regular appointment against any vacancy that may be available with them. Shri R.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner was appointed purely on contractual basis on payment of consolidated salary of Rs.1,000/- per month. His appointment used to be made within one month as and when the Assembly was in session. On working under such nature of appointment, the petitioner did not acquire any right of continuity in service or for regular appointment. It is contended that regular appoints are required to be made as per the provisions contained in Rajasthan Legislative Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1992. Learned counsel submitted that the appointment of the aforesaid five persons were made pursuant to their regular 4 selection. It is contended that three vacancies of Class-IV accrued with the respondents in the year 2000 and two new posts of Class IV were sanctioned by the Government. The Hon'ble Speaker of the Legislative Assembly constituted a selection committee consisting of Secretary and Special Secretary of the Assembly. Seven persons were called for the interview but only five appeared and selection committee recommended their appointment. Appointment of three persons namely Jai Singh Bhati, Birbal Raag, Bardi Narain Meena was made by order dated 11.10.2000. Similarly two posts of Class IV sanctioned in the year 2001 were filled up by regular mode on the recommendation of the selection committed constituted by the Hon'ble Speaker and appointment of . Mahipal Singh Bhati and Ramlal Gurjar was made by order dated 6.2.2001. Learned counsel argued that even though these appointments are made in 2000 and 2001, the petitioner has only produced their appointment orders on record and neither did he seek to challenge their appointment, nor any of them has been 5 impleaded as party respondent to the petition. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be permitted to raise any argument with regard to validity of their appointment in their absence. It is therefore prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. When pointedly asked, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not show to the Court whether the appointment of the petitioner himself was made by any acceptable mode of recruitment or whether he applied pursuant to any advertisement giving opportunities to all eligible persons. Even though the petitioner has worked for two years or so intermittently as and when the Assembly was in session, his appointment also cannot be said to be of regular in nature otherwise entitling him to regularisation in service. Those persons with regard to whom grievance is raised by the petitioner were appointed pursuant to the recommendation of the selection committee constituted by the Speaker of the Assembly. The petitioner has merely brought their appointment orders on record, but he has not challenged them. It is therefore 6 rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the correctness or validity of their appointment cannot be questioned in their absence and when specific challenge to the appointment orders have not been made, this Court cannot go into the correctness of the mode of or competence of the authorities making their appointment. Their appointments cannot be simply therefore relied by the petitioner for the purpose of analogy or even on the argument of discrimination. In view of above, no case is made out for interference. However, it is considered appropriate to observe that in case any vacancy of Class IV employee is available with the respondents, the petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation to the respondent which the respondents shall consider and decided in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid observations. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/