1 S.B. Civil writ petition No. 779/1997 Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Order : 25.2.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.M.R. Singhvi,for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Bhati, Asstt to AAG. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was appointed as Sub-Engineer vide office order dated 24.11.1978 and was appointed in the pay scale of Rs.470-830 from the date of his joining. The petitioner's this appointment was ad hoc appointment and also for a period of 3 months in the first instance or till the regular candidates by selection committee are made available, whichever is earlier, which is clear from Annex.1. The petitioner continued in service without any interruption upto to 27.1.19097 i.e., for about 9 years. Then on 27.1.1997, the petitioner was served with the notice that since he is ad hoc appointee and regularly selected candidates have come in the year 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1988 and 1996, therefore why his services may not be terminated. The copy of this notice is Annex.6. The petitioner challenged the said notice Annex.6 by filing this writ petition and this Court vide order dated 14.2.1997 stayed the operation of the notice. Now the petitioner has 2 completed services of about 31 years by now. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointee like the petitioner's services could have been regularized in view of the Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Engineering (Building and Road Branch) Service Rules, 1973, wherein there is provision of screening of ad hoc appointee for the purpose of giving regular appointment. It is also submitted that thereafter also, the State Government issued another notification dated 21.12.1989 providing that persons employed on work charged basis in Public Works Department, Irrigation, Indira Gandhi Nahar Board and who have put in at least two years continuous service as on 1.4.1988 and such other employees who have been working on lower posts in the department and possesses the requisite qualifications for direct recruitment to any of the post of Driver, Tracers, Ferryman, Junior Draftsman, Laboratory Assistant, Laboratory Attendant etc may be considered once only for appointment on these posts against direct recruitment quota including the persons who are appointed under the Rajasthan Engineering Subordinate Service (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1967 and Rajasthan Subordinate Engineering (B&R Branch) Service Rules, 1973. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that petitioner since then was selected in regular pay and ad hoc appointment was not illegal appointment and there is a procedure of 3 regularization by screening in the rules and petitioner has completed services of more than 31 years in the same department, therefore, it is a fit case for consideration for regularization on the post of Sub-Engineer or Engineering Subordinate or on the equivalent post if any name has been changed of the post. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner had opportunity to seek regularization, but he did not apply for the regularization and further number of persons were made available in due course of time duly selected under the rules and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. The petitioner is in service since last 31 years. He continued in service for almost 10 years with no bar of removal or any order of restrained against the respondents. The petitioner's services were sought to be terminated for the first time by notice Annex.6 dated 27.1.1997. From notice dated 27.1.1997 itself it is clear that even after availability of the regularly selected candidates in the years 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1988 and 1996, the petitioner's services were not terminated on the ground of availability of regularly selected candidates. It may be unjust to terminate the services of the petitioner after his services of 31 years in the department and particularly when time to time the 4 employer Government itself took decision to regularize such ad hoc and temporary appointee in the same services appointed under the same rules in which the petitioner has been appointed and the position has been made clear by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnakata Vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. Consequently, this writ petition of the petitioner is allowed and the impugned notice Annex.6 is set aside. The respondents are directed to screen the petitioner and on being found successful in the screening, the petitioner be given regular appointment. [PRAKASH TATIA], J. cpgoyal/-