AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner was appointed as Library Assistant on adhoc basis initially for three months by order dated 12.11.1984. His term was thereafter
extended from time to time and he was eventually given the benefit of Government Order No. 1220GAD of 1989 dated: 11.9.1989 and his
service were ordered to be regularised vide Govt. Order No. 1045Edu of 1989 dated: 18.10.1989 wherein he figures at S.No. 7 in the annexure
appended thereto.
It transpires that petitioner had filed his first writ petition No. 2067 of 1994 on the same subject matter and had claimed that his seniority should
reckon from the date of his initial ad hoc appointment (12.11.1984). This writ petition was dismissed by order dated 9.8.1994. He has now filed
this petition, second in series, to reagitate the same issue though in a different bottle. He now seeks quashment of the rejections of his request in
.this regard and a direction to respondents to regularise his services from 13.11.1984 when he was first appointed on ad hoc basis which comes to
the same old thing.
In the reply filed it is submitted that petitioner had suppressed the material facts and with held the information about the filing of his first SWP
No. 2067/94 which stood dismissed and the decision wherein operates as rejudicata on the point in issue involved.
All this apart, it is not understandable how and by what logic petitioner was claiming regularisation of his services from his first ad hoc
appointment on 12.11.1984. It is a matter of record that he was regularised under Government Order NO. 1220GAD of 1989 which provided
for the regularisation of services of all adhoc appointees upto 11.12.1988, and was governed by the terms and conditions ladi down therein. He
was to sink or swim alongwith the terms of that order but for which his services would not be regularised and could not travel beyond its
boundaries. As this order did not conteplate such regularisation of the beneficiaries retrospectively, petitioner could also not claim it outside its
scope and terms. His effort seems to be to kill two birds with one stone by first entering the service on shelving of the recruitment rules and then
claim the benefit of an irregular appointment and acceptance of his plea would be putting premium on the irregularity. He also overlooks that the
issue stands closed by dismissal of his first writ petition.
All told, the writ petition represents a desparate effort to achieve indirectly what the petitioner failed to obtain directly. It is accordingly rejected
on preliminary hearing.