IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR .LgBD W. P. NO ----- 2003 Ashok Kumar Surya, S/o. Piabhudayal,aged about 28 years, R/o. Ambikapur (Kedarpur Mohalla), Tahsil — Ambikapur Dist. — Surguja(C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary 'General Administration Department, D.K.Bhawan Raipur(C.G.) Collector Surguja, Ambikapur Dist.—Surguja(CJG.) . PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 2 7 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA v XI-HC-22 w ,V ~ ?» \9J} away @v 5m. Meena Shasfri, counsel for fhe peti‘rioner. 5hri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Deputy Advocafe General for the i~esponden+s. The petitioner has preferred fhis pefition under Arfide 226 / 227 of ‘rhe Consfifufion of India. In para-5 of fhe petifion if Is‘ sm‘ted ‘l'ha? fhe pefifioner- was appointed in the Census Department as Assistant Grade-III on contract of specified durations. The work of the petitioner was satisfactory regm-ding which the Competent Authority ha also issued a good working certificate. ll‘he petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste community. The copy of the caste certificate is Annexure-P/z. The petitioner is a permment resident of State of Chha'ttisgarh and copy of don icile certificate is Anneuxre-P/3. It is further stated that other ten similarly placed workers of that department have heen retrenched as per the order of respondent No.2, the copy of which is Annexure-P/4. There is an order of the department that these employees will be treated as surplus workers and should have bfeeii Ii , XI~HC-22 $2 Mmmm ,Qr/ ‘ $Wm key given prior-Hy over- ofher deparfmen‘l' as per 'rhe notification issued by the State, ‘rhe copy of which is Annexure—IV5. The responden? No.2 has again appoimed similarly placed other workers of the removal list mid some fresh candidates. It is further submitted that th petitioner had also applied for, but arbitrarily he has not been appointed. The fresh appointment is prohibited because of ban period, only surplus w rkers should be appointed. But one Rohit Kumar whose me is mentione at 5r. No.10 of the list is fresh candidate. On the other hand, Rohit or is the nephew of one'c‘lerk RD. Chandrakar. This act of the res ndent No.2 shows the aspect of arbitrariness aid maliciousness. I have heard the learned counse for the petitioner. As has been mentioned in the pe ition itself that the appointment was on contract basis for a fixed term and on expiry of that term the petitioner’s services has been termivlated vide Anne:<ure-P{4 along with other 10 persons. [mew XE-HC~22 mmm /3/ %arti—dwa1x%¥1 A per-use! of Annexure-P/5 reveals that 'l'he Govemmeni‘ of Madhya Pradesh which was the Moiher 5* of fhe presenf Sfafe of Chhamsgarh issued a circular from fime To fime o fhe effecf that all fhe emplayees of fhe Census Departmenf whose servl es have been fermlnafed an account of lhe expiry of the ferm fhey will b Treated as surplus employees md they will be given priority in the matter o dppointment on the similar posts. The main grievance of the le ned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is not being consid ed even in Census Department. Some other appointments are being tok place andvone Rohit Kumor a fresh candidate has been appointed. / The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1 9 SUPREME COURT 2202 (Govt. of Tamil Nadu and mother Vs. 6. Moh ed Ameenuddin Others.) in which the Hon'ble Apex Court issued direcitions that the Government should work outascheme to absorb these emp yees in appropriate employments. It would be appropriate for the eovernment to work out a scheme to absorb these employees in appropriate empl'oyment. Let such a scheme be worked Row/a %%‘\ y“ ago yaw [¢§ W‘ K xx-Hcm22 WW, W;m mm. .. /£2/?§ m W m$i§§W mmm 111% w ll f om as we Think fha‘t such a sifuah‘on occasionally arise. On earlier agcasions whén such si‘ruafions had arisen, jhose who had done similar jobs, had been absorbed in aovernmenf servic by the appellant. In doing so, the V Governmen? may also bear in mi whefher fhe employees can be recruii'ed V in fhe local aufhoril'ies, quasi-g emmeni'al orgarliza‘iions w Governmerrl Companies. In View of 1'he abave dire ions given by lhe Hon'ble Apex Court 1'he 6overnmenf of Chhafiisgarh may also consider for absorbing the surplus employees who had worked under he Census Department in fhe ligh‘r of the direcfion given by The Hon'ble A Gout-f and fhe pel'i‘l'ioner is a? liberly To /approach 1'he Governmenf for abs rp‘rion and on his moving. the Government . of Chhattisgarh, the Department f General Administration may consider his representation appropriately. In View of this order, M. .P. No. 1660/2003 6i LA. 5493/2003 standvdisppsed of. I With these observations, t e Writ petition is disposed of. l Sd/- l BarVe/ . ‘