JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)THE petitioner was engaged on daily wages on 15.2.1984. A panel was prepared in the year 1984 pursuant to the circular of the government issued in the year 1980 for preparation of panel for appointment on class IV posts in the district,
Annexure -2. The petitioner 'sname as casual worker was at serial no. 41 in the said panel prepared by the District
Magistrate, Rohtas. Although, the petitioner was engaged on daily wages on 15.2.84 and he was working since then, yet
he was not regularly appointed, and as such, the petitioner has come before this Court for issue of direction for
regularisation of his services. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the
writ petition the respondents are not taking work from him. However, it has been disclosed that the persons below the
petitioner in the panel have already been offered regular appointment.
(2.)A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents where in the fact that the petitioner 'sname was in the panel prepared in 1984 and he was working on daily wages has not been denied. But their stand is that in the panel
prepared in 1995 the name of the petitioner was not mentioned and, as such, he was not offered permanent employment.
In reply to the counter affidavit it has been stated that vacancy is still existing and for the purpose the learned counsel drew
my attention to Annexure -7 of reply to the counter affidavit.
From the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and the materials available on the record this much is obvious that the petitioner 'sname was in the panel prepared in the year 1984, his name was at serial no. 41 in the panel, he
was working on daily wages. According to the government circular, if all persons included in the panel are not appointed,
the names of the remaining candidates shall be carried forward in the panel of the subsequent year. The stand of the
respondents is that his name was not included in the panel of 1995. This is against the circular of the government and if his
name was not included in the panel of 1995 then the respondents should have blamed themselves for their inaction.
Moreover, after filing of the writ petition the petitioner has been disengaged, though he had already completed about 16
years on daily wages.
(3.)IN the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the District Magistrate to make an inquiry as to why his name was not included in the panel prepared in 1995 and also whether the persons below the petitioner in the panel were offered
permanent employment and if all these things are found correct then consider the claim of petitioner for regular employment
without any delay.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.