CW 1772/97 - Dilip Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Judgment dt.22.1.09 1/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT Dilip Mathur Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION 1772/1997 Date of Order : 22nd January, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Rajesh Joshi for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Rajvi for the respondent Municipal Board. None present for the State. --------- BY THE COURT: 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for regularization of his service as Junior Engineer in the respondent Municipal Board, Abu Road in terms of circular issued by the State Government, Director of Local Self Government Department on 22.1.1998 requiring the Municipal Board to forward the case to regularize those Junior Engineers, who had completed 2 years of continuous service on 30.11.1997. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Joshi pointed out that in the screening by the Screening Committee under order dated 25.10.2002 Annex.14 only 2 persons were recommended for regularization i.e. Kailash Vyas and another Shri Anil Kumar Gupta from general category and Shri Shankar Lal from scheduled CW 1772/97 - Dilip Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Judgment dt.22.1.09 2/5 caste category, remaining Junior Engineers were not found entitled to be regularized. He submits that even in the said order dated 25.10.2002, reference to two writ petitions pending in this Court has been made namely S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5683/1998 – Dara Singh Vs. Municipal Council and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3044/1999 – Narendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan. Subsequently said Dara Singh appears to have filed another writ petition along with other writ petitions i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8316/2002 – Dara Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan. These five writ petitions came to be allowed by the Jaipur Bench of this Court on 11th June, 2004 with following directions:- “12. As a result of the foregoing discussions, I allow instant writ petitions and direct as under:- (i) the impugned order dated October 25, 2002 so far it relates to the petitioners stand set aside. (ii) the respondents shall give similar treatment to the petitioners as has been given to Rameshwar Lal Sharma, Ramesh Chand Sharma and Babu Lal Kandola and regularise the services of the petitioners on the post of Junior Engineer in accordance with law. (iii) the respondents shall ensure compliance of this order within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (iv) there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Shiv Kumar Sharma) J.” CW 1772/97 - Dilip Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Judgment dt.22.1.09 3/5 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that on the directions of this Court though those petitioners have since been regularized as Junior Engineers, however, the petitioner was left out. He also refers to order of certain other writ petitions on the similar grounds namely S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5337/2005 – Karnesh Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Decided on 13.11.2006 and CW No.224/2003- Satya Narain Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Decided on 16.4.2008. He also referred to the Division Bench order in the case of D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.726/2007 – State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Dalip Singh Nirman, by which the State appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 3.10.2007. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. D.S. Rajvi on the other hand submitted that the petitioner could not have been regularized so because the Municipal Board had earlier passed resolution on 23.4.1997 that the petitioner should be removed from service on account of his discriminatory policies about undertaking construction work of Municipal Board in the area. The said resolution is placed on record as Annexure 4 which the petitioner has challenged. He, however, admitted that no proper enquiry was held against the petitioner before passing the said resolution deciding to remove him from service. He also fairly brought to the notice of the Court the resolution passed by the Municipal Board, Abu Road dated 13.1.2007 that Board has decided to continue the services of the said CW 1772/97 - Dilip Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Judgment dt.22.1.09 4/5 petitioner Dilip Mathur looking to the work pressure of the Municipal Board. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the resolution dated 23.4.1997 Annex.5 was stayed by the State Government vide Annex.R/3 dated 9.6.1997, however, the same order directed the Municipal Board to remove the petitioner from service under resolution No.8(III) Annex.5. 6. Be that as it may, after hearing the learned counsels and having gone through the various orders passed in the matter and judgments of this Court and also the fact that other similarly situated persons have since been regularized as Junior Engineers by the respondent Municipal Board, there appears to be no good reason as to why the petitioner's services should also not be regularized in view of the circular dated 22.1.1998. The petitioner had admittedly completed more than two years of service since he joined in 1992 as Junior Engineer by the cut off date 30.11.1997 as given in the said decision. The resolution Annex.5 passed by the Municipal Board itself appears to have been reversed by the latest resolution dated 13.1.2007 deciding to continue the petitioner in service. Even otherwise, the said resolution dated 23.4.1997 appears to be ex facie in breach of the principles of natural justice and passed without holding any enquiry against the petitioner in the matter the bald allegations of his having adopted discriminatory policy for construction work of Municipal Board hardly leads this Court CW 1772/97 - Dilip Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Judgment dt.22.1.09 5/5 anywhere. The said resolution, therefore, cannot stand in the way of the petitioner for consideration of his case to be regularized in terms of order dated 22.1.1998. Even otherwise, in view of the fact that several other such similarly situated Junior Engineers have been regularized by different Municipal Boards under the same order Annex.11 dated 22.1.1998 pursuant to their litigation in which the State Government and Municipal Board have lost battle upto the Apex Court, there appears no good reason to this court to deprive the petitioner of the similar treatment. 7. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and Annex.5 resolution dated 23.4.1997 is quashed and in terms of the directions given by this Court in the case of Dara Singh Vs. State and others on 11th June, 2004 quoted above, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in terms of annex.11 dated 22.1.1998 within a period of 3 months from today and pass appropriate orders regularizing his services in the Municipal Board. The petitioner will be entitled to consequential benefits. No costs. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.8 babulal/-