AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajay Kumar Tripathi, CJ
Writ application came to be filed by the present Petitioner when the Respondent-Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, issued an order appointing
Respondent No. 3 on the post of Private Secretary. The order in question dated 04.10.2008 is Annexure P/1.
The Petitioner claims that he was senior and more experienced than the private Respondent No. 3 and therefore, should have been considered for
the post of Private Secretary because even in the past, he has worked in that capacity.
We do not get any light in any manner from the pleadings or the rules that the post of Private Secretary is a promotional post and the post on which
the Petitioner has worked as a Clerk, now Assistant Grade III, is the feeder cadre for the post of Private Secretary.
Both the Petitioner as well as the private Respondent No. 3, with large number of other employees were working as daily wagers at one time.
Some of them got removed from service which generated a litigation which travelled upto the Hon'ble Apex Court and on the direction of the High
Court and the Apex Court, a decision was taken to reinstate and regularise all such daily wagers. It seems that the regularisation has been done on the
basis of vacancies available which were sanctioned vacant posts and as part of the said exercise, the Municipal Commissioner decided to regularise or
appoint Respondent No.3 on the post of Private Secretary.
Since all the persons including the present Petitioner, especially the private Respondent No. 3 have never been appointed on the basis of any
advertisement or exercise of selection but have entered the service as a daily wager and later their services came to be regularised, therefore, such
adjustments were required to be made on the basis of ability, capability as well as sanctioned vacant posts available.
Besides, the post of Private Secretary which has certain sensitivity involved and the trust and faith of the head of the institution is of paramount
consideration if he has the basic eligibility, no employee can claim as a matter of right that he has to be appointed as Private Secretary to the head of
the institution specially when such post is not a promotional post from the feeder cadre, though, it can be from the pool of talent available in a
particular cadre of Assistants etc.
In the above background and not being satisfied that any rule as such has been violated on assigning of responsibility upon Respondent No. 3 as a
Private Secretary, the writ application has no merit. It is dismissed.