^ L^ ^ 2-' ./ cro/ <&> IN THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PMNCIPAL BE AT JABALPUR ^———-' _ias O.A. N0. APPLIGANT: RESPONDENTS: 1. Shri Roshanlal Sinha, S/o Shri Mo^ Sinha, aged about 36 years, working Peon in the O/o Block Education officfc Kurud, District Dhamtari (Raipur). Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, Through: Secretary, Department of School Education. 2. Director, Public Instructions, Bhopal. 3. The District Education Oflicer, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Madhya Pradesh. APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE ADMWISTRATWE TMBCNALS ACT m^...:.^.^.-^... HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. Writ Petition (S) No.2000/2005 PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: Shri Roshanlal Sinha Versus State of M. P. and others FOR PRONOUNCMENT OF ORDER ManindraMohanShrivasiava Judge •f t ' :)"!'i^ .;>.. •j. .1-^" % • ^' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrtvastava. J. Writ Petition (S) No.2000/2005 PET1TIONER: RESPONDENTS: Shri Roshanlal Sinha Versus State of M. P. and others PresentShri S. R. J. Jaiswal, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. ORDER (Passed on J^April, 2010) This petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing legality and validtty of order dated 29-04-2000 (Annexure A-1), by whteh, sen/ices of the petitioner have been terminated. (2) Petitioner was initially appointed vkle order dated 27-01-1^9 (Annexure A-2) as contingency peon on collector rate for a period of 89 days purely on temporary 'capacity. Vkle order dated 28-09-1992 (Annexure A-4), services of the petitioner were extended for another 89 days in the same capacity. It has been demonstrated with reference to the extract of service book (Annexure A-5) that after five years, regular payscale was granted to the petitioner. On perusal of the contents of the service book, it was reveated that servfces of the petitfoner were regutarized. Vide impugned order dated 29-04-2000 (Annexure A-1), services of the petitioner were terminated by stating that in view of the government instructton dated 14-02-2000 and Directorate's instructton dated 18-02-2(XX) and having found that the petittoner was appointed after 31-12-1988 without getting permission from the Finance Department and without selection by selection committee, his appointment was illegal. !t has been submitted on behalf ofthe petitioner that at the time oftermination, petitioner was not a daily rate employee and he became a regular employee. It is also submitted that as the petitioner's appointment was against a vacant post, he •^:s'^a^^^.':. 7 /s f '^,''"IIB '!•'!< '"..»..<*• uf> could not be removed from service. It is also submitted that petitioner was granted regular pay scale in view ofthe circular dated 10-05-1994. (3) Per contra, submissun on behalf of learned counsel for the respondents is that ttie scrutiny committee had minutely scrutinized the case of the petitioner and it was found that initial appointment of the petitioner itself was iltegal as he was appointed after 31-12-1988. Leamed counsel forthe respondents lurther submits that it was a case of back door entry and appointment ofthe petitioner itsetf being illegal, he cannot claim regularization. (4) From the pleadings and materiat available on record, it is found that the pet ioner was appointed on collector rate for a period of 89 days without following any regular process of selection and the constitutfonal procedure. It was cleariy a back door entry. Such appointment was dehors rules. (5) In wew of the settted law of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Kamataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, Government of Andhra ftadesh and others vs. K. Brahmanandam and others, (2008) 5 SCC 241 and Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and others, (2008) 10 SCC 1, petittener is not entitled for regularizatton nor a directfon can be issued bythis Court. Thus, there is no illegality in the impugned actfon of termination of service of the petitioner. (6) Petitton is therefore dismissed. Interim order granted by the Tribunal on 12-06-2000 is hereby vacated. There shall be no orders as to cost. ^'^<->^a' ^T' tA.a1^&ta^e