For a05w. Mn. Hmum,’ BEmRE H01? 'BLE STATE ADMINIuTRATIVE TR UNA}; W mm} (Mam. K5)5im7/0{j W original Application No. of 1999 mlicant :- W KUMAR s 3/9 shri Ishwax La Sinha éged arm: 3¢ yeArs. L’n—skilled Assi stant (C1 ass IV) étound Water Survey Unit $0. 34 G-6.Pdarsh Nagar. was amp.) gab-applicants: 1. $t¢te cf Madhxa Praéesh V ihreugp :- Secretary Tube-Wen and Irrigation, Md Water Resourms Department, GOVt-Of MvPt I Bhugal ”LPJ . 2. Chief. @ngnear Tubaweu and Irrigation, iiater Resouxces Department 177-kéaharana Pratap Nagar, Zone-2, 39ml (PLPJ ggtails o£ agglication (U/s 19 o5 the Administrative wibmals Act 1985) .~ 1. yaxti£u1§s o£ the agglicant :- As given in the cause title. (mg Cantcxt. a .2 imm 5 ‘, \ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Single Bench: Ho’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Writ Petition (S) No.3100/2005 PETiIigNER: Daman Kumar Sinha Versus State of M. P. and another RESPONDENTS: FOR PRONOUNCMENT OF ORDER UM 29'4‘20/0 V ff sd/_ Shrivastava i .Manindra MOM“ Judge / #i—f n J. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Smqle Bench Hon ble Shn Mamndra Mohan Shnvastava J Writ Petition (S) No.310012005 PETITIONER: Daman Kumar Sinha Versus RESPONDENTS: State of M. P. and another Present: Shri V. G. Tamaskar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Payashi, Pane! Lawyer for the State/respondents. O R D E R (Passed on 30MApril, 201 0) This petition has been fiied by the petitioner not against any particuiar order but he claiming regularization on the post of Typist Class-Ill with effect from 29‘“ f November, 1990. (2) Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on daily wage basis for the period 09-11-1984 to 25-05-1992, details of which are shown in the chart prepared by the Office on 11-12-1990 (Annexure A-1). Petitioner was working against ciear vacancy of Typist. The State Govt. had issued directions to various departments for t reguiarization of employees working on daily wage baSIs prior to 31 12 1988 which is evrdent from Annexure A—2 to Annexure A-4 Vlde order dated 29-11 1990 Shn Madan Lal, Shri Kamal Kishor Sahu‘and Shri Rajendra‘ Chandrasth. who were appointed on daily wages basis, were regularized. Vide order dated 23-04-1992 (Annexure A-6), the petitioner was appointedron temporary basis as Unskilled Assistant, a class lV post. The petitioner made several representations claiming regularization on the post of Typist on 11-12-1990 (Annexure A-7), 19-08-1994 i l (Annexure A-8), 04-10-1996 (Annexure A-9) and 05-12—1999 (Annexure A-10). The petitioner submits that on account of his long continuance and in view of the aforesaid government circulars of regularization and as number of persons junior to him have been reguiarized. he is aiso entitled to be regularized in service as semi skilled Typist Class-Ill from the day he was appointed on daily wages basis. {-3) Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was initially engaged on daily wage basis as Skilled Labour. He was regularized on 24-04-1992 as Unskilled Assistant. lt is further submitted that the petitioner cannot be regularized on the post of Typist as he was never been engaged as Copyist or Typist in the ofiice. lt is also submitted that Annexure A-1 filed by the petitioner is a manipulated document. The true copy of original document placed on record as / Annexure R-3 shows that the last column No.10 has been wrongly shown as blank in the copy tiled by the petitioner. lt is also argued by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner‘s initial appointment on daily wage basis was made without following the regular process of selection prescribed under the statutory K recruitment rules. The petitioner‘s appointment was a back-door entry and without following any constitutional procedure. lt is submitted that the petitioner has otherwise bken regularized though. as Unskilled Assistant. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that his initial appointment was in accordance with the regular process of selection or in accordance with the constitutional procedure. His initial appointment being not in accordance with the proper procedure prescribed under the statutory recruitment rules, the petitioner has no right to claim regularization. is: ‘ (4) From the pleadings and material on record.‘it is apparent that petitioner's initial appointment was on daily wage basis for limited period. This was a back door entry. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate either from his pleadings or from material l placed on record that he was subjected to regular process of selection in accordance with the relevant recruitment rules befcre his- appointment. it is thus held that petitioner‘s initial appointment itself was illegal, dehors rules and without following constitutional procedure. Such illegal appointment did not confer on the petitioner any right to be regularized in service. x (5) ln view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary. State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, Government of Andhra Pradesh and others vs. K. Brahmanandam and others, (2008) 5 SCC 241 and Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and others, (2008) 10 SCC 1, the petitioner is not entitled to be regularized on the post of Semi Skilled Typist Class lll as claimed by him on the strength of various policy of regularization which lost their efficacy. force and effect. The petitioner has already been regularized as Unskilled Assistant on 24—04-1992. The petition is dismissed. There shall be no ‘ orders as to cost. .Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Sd/— w . t IW 1‘7?