SBCWP No.6644/94. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6644/1994. Achchey Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order : October 16, 2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri R.D. Tripathi for the petitioner. Shri B.L. Awasthi, Additional Government Counsel. **** BY THE COURT :- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 22/11/1994 whereby, his services were terminated from the post of Technician Fitter and the order dated 24/11/1994 whereby he was relieved from such appointment. Petitioner has also additionally prayed that appointment of respondent No.4 Munish Chaturvedi in his place on the said post be declared to be illegal and be set-aside and the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner in that post with all consequential benefits. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner was initially appointed with the respondents on 16/7/1981 against the vacancy SBCWP No.6644/94. 2 reserved for handicapped quota. He, in this manner, continued till such time his services were terminated on 31/1/1983. Petitioner challenged his order of termination by filing SBCWP No.399/1983 which was allowed by this court vide order dated 30/9/1991 with directions to the respondents to reinstate him in service with consequential benefits. Petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated 25/2/1992 and in this manner continued. Petitioner then submitted representation to the respondents that his services should be regularised. Reference of which has been made to the representation dated 2/9/1993. Instead of regularising his services, respondents advertised the post reserved for handicapped quota against which petitioner was working. In compulsion, petitioner had to apply and respondent No.4 also applied in the same selection process. As respondent No.4 was selected and petitioner failed to qualify the selection process, services of petitioner were terminated. Learned counsel referred to various circulars of the government specially, dated 28/12/1990, 21/6/1990 and 4/2/1992 and argued that government in all these circulars had ordained upon the appointing authorities to regularise services of such handicapped employees who have been working for long span of time. Action of the respondents in advertising the post, appointing respondent No.4 and SBCWP No.6644/94. 3 not regularising services of the petitioner is therefore wholly arbitrary and illegal. The order of his termination should therefore be quashed and set- aside and the petitioner be directed to be reinstated while setting aside appointment of respondent No.4. 4) Shri B.L. Awasthi, learned Additional Government Counsel has opposed the writ petition and argued that petitioner in the first spell merely worked from 16/7/1981 till 31/1/1983 when his services were terminated and thereafter he was reinstated following judgment of this Court on 25/2/1992. Respondents advertised the post which was reserved for handicapped quota in which petitioner as well as respondent No.4 both competed. While respondent No.4 was selected, petitioner failed. His services were therefore terminated vide order dated 22/11/1994. In this manner, he has hardly served the respondents for a period of 2 years and 9 months in the second spell. As against this, respondent No.4 who was appointed has by now served the respondents for almost 15 years. It was argued that having appeared in the process of selection, petitioner is estopped from questioning the correctness of such selection. As regards the aforesaid circulars, learned Additional Government Counsel counsel argued that petitioner at that stage when he was in service should have availed appropriate remedy for SBCWP No.6644/94. 4 regularization or for redressal of his grievances. Now when respondent No.4 has been selected, there can be no question of considering case of the petitioner for regularisation against the post which has already been filled in. 5) On consideration of the arguments aforesaid and perusal of the material on record, I find that earlier writ petition of the petitioner was allowed with the limited observation that since two posts were available in the reserved quota for handicapped persons and one post was still available and therefore instead of continuing any candidate of the general category, petitioner should have been continued against such post which was reserved for handicapped category. There was no direction in the judgment of this court dated 30/9/1991 that case of the petitioner should be considered for regularisation or that he should be treated as regular on that post. Petitioner was therefore continued in the same terms as before. The respondents advertised the post again and the petitioner applied in response thereto but in selection process he failed to qualify whereas respondent No.4 was selected and duly appointed. 6) In the facts like these, contention of the petitioner that appointment of respondent No.4 should be annuled so as to accommodate him against the post SBCWP No.6644/94. 5 filled in, cannot be accepted. Respondent No.4 has rendered 15 years of service. As regards various circulars of the government on which reliance is placed, as rightly urged by the learned Additional Government Counsel, petitioner ought to have availed of remedy when he was still in service. 7) While not interfering with the appointment of respondent No.4 and the termination and consequential reversion of the petitioner, I set the petitioner at liberty to make representation to the respondents for consideration of his case of fresh appointment against the quota of handicapped quota for the vacancies of any year that may be with the respondents. On such representation being filed, it is expected of the respondents to sympathetically consider his case for fresh appointment keeping in view the services earlier rendered by the petitioner and also for relaxation of the age bar. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil