IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 4586 of 2008(OA No.1832/1997) Decided on : 4.1.2010. Chandi Lal …Petitioner. Versus H.P.S.E.B. and others ..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. R.G.Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) The petitioner has filed the petition for a direction to the respondent-Board to regularize the services of the petitioner against technical post of Carpenter with effect from the date the petitioner had completed five years of continuous service as Carpenter i.e. from 1981 with all consequential benefits like seniority and arrears etc. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of Annexure P-11 dated 3.9.1997 vide which the petitioner was given work-charge status as Beldar by the Board. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was engaged as Carpenter by the Board on 21.11.1975 and since then he is working continuously as Carpenter. The petitioner had filed CWP No. 60 of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2 1984 in the High Court which was decided on 7.3.1985 vide Annexure P-3. The petitioner thereafter filed CWP No. 590 of 1987. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing has submitted that in CWP No. 590 of 1987 Annexure P-8 dated 22.9.1993 was also challenged during the pendency of the petition. CWP No. 590 of 1987 was ultimately decided on 13.12.1994 but Annexure P-8 dated 22.9.1993 was not specifically quashed in CWP No. 590 of 1987. In Annexure P-8 dated 22.9.1993, it has been stated that pursuant to the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 10.5.1991 and consequent upon the negotiated settlement having been arrived at with the HPSEB employees union on 29.6.91, Shri Chandi Lal working as daily waged in the Board was offered the post of T/Mate purely on temporary basis in the pay scale of Rs. 750-20-950-25-1200-30-1350. The petitioner thus remained posted as T/Mate in pursuance of Annexure P-8 dated 22.9.1993. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner did not join as T/Mate in pursuance of Annexure P-8 dated 22.9.1993. 3. The respondents vide Annexure P-11 dated 3.9.1997 appointed petitioner as work charge Beldar in pursuance of Mool Raj Upadhyaya & Others versus State of H.P. in C.W.P. No. 787/87 with W.P.(C ) Nos. 1086/87, 249/88 and C.P. No.342/91 and offered him pay scale of Rs.770-30-950-35-1160-40-1320-45-1410. Annexure P-11 dated 3.9.1997 has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at the time of initial appointment as Carpenter the requisite 3 qualifications were relaxed by the Board. In support, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied notification dated 9.1.1987. The notification dated 9.1.1987 is applicable to persons appointed/promoted prior to 10.5.1984 and also to those who were engaged on muster-rolls / daily wages upto 10.5.1984. The petitioner is praying regularization as Carpenter that means he was initially engaged as daily wage Carpenter. The notification dated 9.1.1987 at the most protects the appointment of petitioner as daily wage Carpenter. The petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the claim for regularization on the post of Carpenter again once that claim was not accepted in CWP No. 590 of 1987. 5. The case of the Board is that pursuant to order dated 10.5.1991 of Hon’ble Supreme Court and in view of judgment dated 13.12.1994, the daily paid workers who had completed five years or more service on 30.4.1991 and thereafter were to be regularized according to availability of posts and fulfilling the requisite educational and technical qualifications as prescribed in the relevant regulation of the respective posts. The services of the petitioner could not be regularized as Carpenter for want of educational qualification prescribed in Recruitment and Promotion Regulations in respect of the post of Carpenter. The Supreme Court in order dated 3.5.1991 Annexure P-5 in paragraph 3 has given the directions that such daily paid staff should possess minimum educational qualifications as prescribed for regular posts. 6. As per recruitment and promotion rules, 50% Carpenters are to be appointed by way of promotion and 50% by way of direct recruitment with middle standard with ITI 4 certificate/diploma in the trade. The petitioner has not shown any rule/ regulation/scheme or order of the Supreme Court entitling regularization of petitioner on the post of Carpenter in relaxation to the recruitment and promotion rules for the said post. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has requisite qualifications and eligibility for the post of Carpenter by way of direct recruitment in accordance with the recruitment and promotion rules for the said post. 7. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for giving a direction to the respondents for regularization of petitioner as Carpenter and for quashing of Annexure P-11. Resultantly, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. CMP(T) No. 766 of 2009 Infructuous in view of disposal of the main petition. ( Kuldip Singh ), January 4, 2010 Judge. (GR)