="^ ^ igte 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.I W.P. N0. ^ 2-S, /200t* PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS 2.. -^r ^ Shri Ram Singh Vanshakar, S/o. Shri Rati Ram Vanshkar, agedabout 21 years, R/o. Jhansi Road, Kalapuram, Near Rawatpura, Sarkar Engineering College, Datia(M.P.) State of ChhattisgarU, Through Secretary, Departn-ient of Hoine Affairs and Armed Forces, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). Deputy Director General of Police, C.G.A.F. Bhilai, Office of Chhaftisgarh Shashasfra Bal/Armed Forces, Bhilai (C.G.) Senani, 7<" BN Battalion C.G.A.F.Bhilai, Officeof Chhattisgarh Sahastra Bal/Armed Forces, Bhilai (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THB CONSTrrUTION OF INDIAFOR GRANT OF WRIT. [I !M HIGH COURT OFCHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0.228/2005 Shri Ram Singh Vanshkar Vs. State of C.G. & Others. Postfor 8/3/2006 Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge & ys as 4 ;;.!fili "tfe HiGHCOURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WR!T PETITION N0.228QOOS Shri Ram Singh Vanshkar Vs. State of C.G.&Others. - Miss Sapna Kshatry, counselforthe petitioner. Shri A.S; Kachhawaha, Dy. Govt. Advocate, for the State. ORDER Per Hon. Fakhruddin. J: Heard learned counselfor the parties. | 2. By this petition under Article 226/2270f the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing ofthe order dated 22/12/2003 (Annex.P/1) and also prayed for appointment in the post ofConstable. The prayer is also made to the effect that the petitioner be compensated for the loss of salary since 4/7/2001 till date which the petitioner would have earned had he been in the job. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's father was Constable in 33rd Bataiian, Bhilai, who died on 29/8/1993, whiie in sen/ice. Annexure-P/5 is the death certifjcate. The petitioner applied for compassjonate appointment on the post of Bal Aarakshak, which was granted to him vide Annexure-P/6 dated 11/11/1994. He joined the services and thereafter served. When the petitioner attained the age of 18 years, he prayed for affsorption in the State of M.P. vide application dated 4/7/2001. He moved another application on 1/10/2001 for absorption in the State of C.G.The application was rejected vide the impugned order dated 22/12/2003 (Annex.P/1) on the ground that the petitipner has not passed the Xth class and as such was not qualified. 4. Learned counselforthepetitionerpointedOLrtthatthecaseQftheipetitioner i was sent as per Annex.P/8 to the Deputy Inspector General that if the pe!titioneris absorbedthen one year can be given to him to pass Xth class. With refbrenceto^ this, as per Annex.P/7, Deputy Inspector General informed that the Commandant could take decision himself. It is stated that vide Annex.P/9 direction was issued by the Police Headquarter, Raipur to all the OfRcers in which it is said that instructions are issued from time to time for appointment on the post of Aarakshak (Consteble) from Bal Aarakshak and in view of the clear instructions issued on 25/4/2000 itis not necessary to issue fresh instructions for such appointment. It was further clarified that those who have attained theage of 18 years and have not been able to pass Xth class, they should not be removed and theyshould be given the appointment on the condition that they will pass Xth class within IA/O years. During this period, theyshould be attached either in lineor suchjobshould be taken from them so that they can study. The Police Headquarter also noted that cases are referred after the Bal Aarakshak attains the ageof 18 years whereas in such cases where the guidance is required the same should be sent before attaining the age of 18 years. It was also directed that the appointment from Bal Aarakshak to Aarakshak (Constable) does not come in the category of fresh appointment ahd as such the ban imposed by the State Government is not applicable. . 5. Learned counsel forthe petitioner submits that ignoring allthe instructions, the matter has been delayed. It is also submitted that vide Annex.P/4, the petitioner has passed 10 Class in the month of December, 2003. S. Reliance is placed upon the judgmentofthe Apex Court inthe case of Guiarat Aaricultural Universltv vs. Rathocf Labhu Bechar and others reported in AIR 2001 SC 706. Counsel for the petitioner referred to para 26 of the said judgment, so far as regularization is concerned, which reads as under: "26. ......Under Claase 1 of 'Scheme for Regularisationof DailyRated Labours ofttie GujaratAgricuttufalUniversity', it is proposed that all daily wage workers, w ther skilieci, semi-skilled or unskitled who have completed 10 years or more of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year as on 31 December, 1999 is to be regularised arid be put in thetimescale ofpay applicable to -tf7e corresponding lowestgrade inthe university. However, thesaid regularizaffon is subjectto some conditions. Under c/ause 1(a) such employee is eligible only if he possesses the prescribed qualifications for the post atthe time of ffwir @SI1 appointment. The strong objection has been raised to this eligibility c/ause. The submission is, those working for a period of 10 or more years without any complaint is byitself a sufficient requisjte qualification and any othertider on the facts of this casewoukl prejudice these workers. We find merit in this submission. We have perused ffiw qualMcations referred in the aforesaid recruitmeni ruies according to which, qualificafion for Peon is sat he should study upto ^ Sfd., for Operator-cum-Mechanic, should have Dipioma in Mechanic having sufKcient knowledge of vehicle repainng experience jn automobiiesor tractors Dealers workshop for hfo years, forChowkktar, he mustbe literate and have good physique. LSterate is not definecS. For Plumber to have I.T.1. Certrffcate. Wefeel that daily rate workers who have been working on the aforesaid posts for such a long number ofyears without ccfmplaint on these posts is a ground by itsetf for the relaxation of the aforesaid eiigibility condition. it would not be appropriate to disqualify them on this ground for their absorption, hence clause 1(a), need modMcation to this effect" 7. Return has been flled by the respondents. It is submitted that the petitioner, who was appointed as Child Constable on the basis of compassionate appointment vide order dated 11/11/1994, had submitted an application for his appointment to the post of Constable but since he had not submitted any certificate regarding his clearance from the 10 Board Examination, which was a condition precedent for an appointment on the said post, therefore, the application submitted by him was rejected by the Deputy Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh vide order dated 22/12/2003. It is further submitted that respondent no.3 had directed the petitioner by letter dated 31/5/2002 to submit the mark sheet in respectof 10 Class Examination and in pureuance ofthe said letter neittier the petitioner submitted the mark sheet nor submitted ahy explanation. It is also submitted that an application dated 10/6/2003 was submitted by the petitioner informmg that he could not succeed in10 Board Examination and prayed for one year time for the study. It is also submitted that sincethe petitioner had not passed the matriculation examination in time, therefore, respondent no.3 wrote a letter dated 25/6/2003 to the Deputy Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh that if the requisite period of two years would have been provided to the petitjoner, even then the petitioner's services would have beenterminated by 9/7/2003 on ^completion of two years of services from 4/7/2001. It isstated that by th4said ea ^tt ^f tetter fespondent no.3 souaht a guidance from the Deputy Dlrector General of Potice, Chhattisgarh regarding the posting of the petitioner on the post of Constable. it is also stated that in pursuance to the aforesaid letter, respondent no.2 rejeeted the application of the petitioner vide the impugned order. 8. Perused the reoord. It is noted that there are dear instructions of the Police i-1eadauarter that the appointment from Bat Aarakshak to Aarakshak (Constabte) does not come in the category of fresh appointment and as such the ban imposed by the State Government is not aDplicabte; It wasalso clarifled that those who have attained the age of 18 vears and have not been able to pass Xth class. they should not be removed and they should be given the apppintment on fhe condition thatthey wiil pass Xth class within two years and during this period thev should be attached either in line or such job should be takeh from them so that they can study. There is also a direction that in such cases where the guidance is required the same shouid be sent before the Bal Aarakshak attains the age of 18 years. In the instant case, ignoring ali the instructions, the matter was unnecessarily delayed bythe authorities. Apart from this, the petitioner has also passsd 10' Class in the month of December, 2003 and there is no impediment. 9. Having thus considered the facts and circumstances and the material on record as dlscussed hereinabove and in view of the ciear instructions issued on 2S/4/2000 and the iaw lajd down bythe Apex Court in the aforesaid case, the impugned order dated 22/12/2003 (Annexure-P/1) is set aside. 10. So far as the prayer to the to the effect that tte petitioner be compensated for the loss of salarv since 4/7/2001 till date which the Detitioner would have earned had he been in thejob iscfincemed, the petitioneronAeing reinstated may flle the representation to the authorities.concarned which may be decided by ths authorities concerned on its own merits in acoordance with lawand if any grievance stiil remams, the petitloner may avaH the remedy avaiiabteiattaw. 11. Accordingty, the petitionis altowed wlth costs. Counsei fee Rs.2000/-. Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge