~:1: f wg HW/Og \w- m THE MADHYA PRADESH STATE ADMINITRATIVE TRIBbRAL AT JABALI’UR ORIGINAL APPLICATION N u ’ Gopal Patre, s/o 31m Angad Patré, Aged about 33 years, Employed on the post of Gardener, In the Omce of Pn'ncipal, Government Science College, RADUR IMP.) Prakash Bharti, S/o Late Snn Dhannu Bharti, Aged about 30 years, Employed on the post of Hostel Servant, g In the omoe of Principal, '\‘ Government Science College, RAIPUR (M.P.1 . . .APPLICANT‘§ ~VERSUS- State ofMadhya Pradesh, Department of Higher Education, Through it’s Principal Secretary, Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhawam BHOPAL gTvE.E‘;. The Commissioner, Higher Education, Government ofMadhya Pradesh, §HOPAL my.) - Ea 3. \ The Additional Commiseioner, Higher Education, _ Raipur—Bastar Division, RAIPUR j g' E} The Principal, Govemment Model Science College, , RAIPUR «we i . ,.RESPONBEN';P: E=EEAILS g“:§' 5‘ EllLmum v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Writ Petition (S) No.1987l2005 PETITIONERS: Gopal Patre and another Versus RESPONDENTS: State of M. P. and others a Present: Shri Mazid Aii, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. ORDER (Passed on 11%Apm, 2010) The instant petition is directed against the order dated 28-02-2000 (Annexure A-8) and order dated 13-03-2000 (Annexure A-9), by which, services of the petitioners have been terminated. ’ " ‘ (2)\ Petitioner No.1 was initially appointed vide order dated 25-09-1990 (Annexure i, "l l A-3) as Cycle stand employee for a period of 89 days on fixed monthly pay of Rs.400/- per month. His' appointment was temporary and was liable to be dismissed at any time without notice. Petitioner No.2 was appointed vide order dated 19-09- 1991 as Cycle stand employee on dxed pay of Rs.400/— per month and his service was temporary and liable to be dismissed at any time without notice. (3) Case of the petitioners is that in order to till-up vacant sanctioned post under contingency establishment from amongst persons belonging to reserve categories (SC/ST/OBC) under special recruitment drive. a selection committee was constituted and as they belong to reserve category of Scheduled Caste, registered with Employment Exchange, fulfilling educational qualification required for the x / céntingency post and selected by a selection committee. The said committee recommended their appointment against vacant post in the contingency establishment, pursuant to which; order dated 13/14-02-1997 (Annexure A-4) was passed, by which, they were appointed on contingency post of Garden Labour and Hostel Servant respectively on a payscale of Rs.750-945l—. it is also submitted that they were allowed house rent allowance, service books were prepared“ and pay w scales were also revised. Provident fund deductions were also made. However. vide {or order dated 28-02-2000, services of both the petitioners wereterminated pursuant to order dated 29-01-2000 of the General Administration Department (Annexure A-8) of the State Government. It was followed by letters dated 13-03-2000 (Annexure A-9). by which. petitioners were informed that they were initially appointed as employees of Cycle stand and they were appointed on contingency posts of Garden Labour and Hostel Servant. The aforesaid letter recorded that for the purpose of making recruitment under special drive for reserve category, names were required to be sponsored from Employment Exchange and were required to be tilled up by following i I (Q regular process of selection but as the names of the petitioners were not contained in "’( the list received from the Employment Exchange. their appointments were in violation of government instruction. (4) It is contended that though services of the petitioners were terminated, other persons appointed along with petitioners were retained by the respondents. lt is further submitted that the government policy exempted the employees belonging to the reserve categories from termination though appointed as daily wage employees. As the, petitioners were appointed in contingency establishment under vacant sanctioned post. getting regular pay scale, their services could not have been terminated. lt is further submitted that there was no ban on making appointment in regard to filling-up of’the vacant post under Educational Institution which is evident i, m from circular dated 31-03-2000 (Annexure A-10). It is argued that though petitioners were daily wage employees but they worked against sanctioned posts and were granted ”reguiar pay scale upon recommendation by a duly constituted selection committee for the purpose of making recruitment under special driye for reserve category candidates and this aspect was ignored from consideration by the scrutiny committee which scrutinized their cases and whose recommendation led to their termination. lt is also submitted that proper opportunity of hearing was notvafforded to ‘C ' ’defend themselves against proposed termination. (5) Per contra, submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that petitioners’ initial entry in service was without any process of selection and without following any constitutional procedurebut it was a back-door entry as daily wage employee for a period of 89 days on a tixed monthly pay of Rs.400l-. From perusal of the appointment letter of the petitioners. it is revealed that their appointment was temporary and their service could be terminated without any notice. Thus, no right w accrued in their favour. It is further submitted that respondent No.4, without following ‘ i.L (L' " regular ’1 process, temporarily appointed the . petitioners as Garden Labour and Hostel Servant in contingency establishment. lt is argued that in order to weed out all illegal appointments made on daily wage basis which were later on converted into temporary/regular appointments but without following any regular process of recruitment and without following constitutional procedure, government issued a circular on 29-01 -2000 for immediately discontinuing all such employees who were engaged on or after 31-12-1988 on daily wage or temporary basis, as there was complete ban on apporntment of employees after 31 12 1988 Pursuant thereto a screening committee was constituted for examination of indiVidual cases including petitioners vide order dated 22-02-2000 (Annexure R-2) of the Principal. The said committee scrutinized the cases of the petitioners and found that petitioners‘ «/ ¢. wu~wx-a§r g names from Employment Exchange and were found to be illegai as all this was done without foliowing the procedure presoribed for regular appointments which is refiected from R-3). It is submitted that their initial appointment was made without there being any vacant post. The appointment of the petitioners as Garden Labour and Hostel Servant was without following due procedure of selection as envisaged in the relevant statutory rules and instructions. Thus, the appointment of appontment was made against instructions of the government, without caltin enquiry report (Annexure l <. ‘ (the petitioners was found illegal. From the report of the selection committee (Annexure R-3), it is revealed that petitioners' name were not sponsored by the Employment E (5) xchange and there is nothing on record to show as to how these two petitioners were allowed to participate in the process of selection and granted regular ap to demonstrat Servant was in accordance with the rules and instructions of the government and their initial appointment on daily wage basis for a period of 89 d vacant, sanctioned post. P respondents that while making recruitment under special drive for reserve category candidates, it was prescribed that names should be sponsored from Employment pointment. Petitioners have failed e that their appointment on the post of Garden Labour and Hostel ays was against any etitioners have failed to respond to specific case of the if! l Exchange but the names of the petitioners were in fact not sponsored by the ‘ Employment Exchange. lt is therefore clear that the petitioners‘ appointment were illegal. The initial appointment of the petitioners was clearly a back-door entry as their names were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange and due procedure of : selection as provided under the statutory recruitment rules, was not followed. (7) \_ ln view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State (zoos) 4' scc 1, ‘ of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and others, i Government bf Andhra Pradesh and others vs. K. Brahmanandam and others, (2008) 5 SCC 241 and Officiai Liquidator vs. Dayanand and others, (2008) 10 SCC 1, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. (8) Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. There shaii be no orders as to cost. ‘% , scy, i Manindra Méhan Slirivastava Judge