Anand Soni vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Rajendra Menon, J.—Challenging the order-dated 31.12.2010 - Annexure P/17 indicating to the petitioner the decision of the State Government in the matter of his regularization, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner was initially appointed in the Town Improvement Trust, Damoh on 1.6.1992 after undergoing due process of selection. Subsequently, the work of Town Improvement Trust was taken over by Municipal Council, Damoh and in pursuance to the same petitioner''s services were also taken over by the Council. In the Municipal Council, Damoh, petitioner is designated and is working as Revenue Sub-Inspector and grievance of the petitioner is that even though he has completed long period of service, his case for regularization is not being considered. Petitioner and many other similarly situated employees working in Municipal Council, Damoh approached this Court seeking regularization. The writ petitions were disposed of and the competent authority was directed to consider the claim of the employees for regularization in accordance to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, and the circulars issued by the State Government. Claim was considered and as the claim of the petitioner is rejected, he is again before this Court challenging the impugned action rejecting his claim.

Shri Shreyas Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioner, took me through the documents and material available on record and emphasized that from the very beginning the petitioner is discharging the duties of Revenue Sub-Inspector and instead of considering his case for regularization against the post on which petitioner is working, his claim is considered for regularization against the post of Tracer, which post is not at all available in Municipal Council, Damoh and on the ground that no vacant post of Tracer is available, his claim is rejected. Referring to the reasons given in paragraph 7 of the impugned order - Annexure P/17, Shri Pandit argues that claim of the petitioner has not been properly considered and, therefore, the action taken is unsustainable.

From the return and the submissions made by Municipal Council, Damoh represented by Shri Anshuman Singh, it is seen that the Municipal Council had recommended for considering the case of the petitioner for regularization against a vacant post of Revenue Sub-Inspector, which was available and in which the petitioner was working. However, instead of considering the claim of the petitioner for regularization against the aforesaid post, petitioner''s claim is considered against a non-existent post and is rejected.

From the documents filed by the petitioner alongwith I.A. No. 12898/2012, it is seen that petitioner is working as Revenue Sub-Inspector and the documents do show that a post of Revenue Sub-Inspector is available and the petitioner''s claim can be considered for regularization against the aforesaid post.

It is surprising that inspite of this fact and the recommendation by the Municipal Council, the State Government chose to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization against a post of Tracer, which was not at all available in the Municipal Council and on the condition that as and when the post is created, petitioner''s claim will be considered the same is rejected.

I am of the considered view that the manner in which the claim of the petitioner is considered and rejected cannot be upheld by this Court. It seems to be an arbitrary decision taken only to deprive the petitioner of his legitimate right and a device to somehow deny regularization to him. When the petitioner was working on the post of Revenue Sub-Inspector and when the records show that a post of Revenue Sub-Inspector was available and even when the Municipal Council had recommended for considering the case of the petitioner against it, the Appropriate Screening Committee and the competent authority of the State Government should have considered the case of the petitioner for regularization against this post and an action taken. This having not been done, the consideration is not proper and the same has to be quashed.

Accordingly, the impugned order-dated 31.12.2010-Annexure P/17, so far as it relates to the petitioner, is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the District Selection Committee to reconsider the case of the petitioner for regularization against the post of Revenue Sub-Inspector as is available in Municipal Council, Damoh and take a decision within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

It may also be taken note of that this Court by an interim order passed has already kept a post vacant. Petitioner''s claim shall be considered against the said post and a decision taken.

Accordingly, the petition stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.