Raju Ganesh Kamble vs State of M.P. and Others

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

The appellant has not so far shown that he was appointed against a clear vacancy by following any regular procedure prescribed for such appointment.

The impugned order of the learned Single Judge says that the Scrutiny Committee appointed pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court in the case of Vishwant Kumar Vs. Madan Lal Sharma and Another, , has rejected the claim of the petitioner for regularization and, therefore, the petitioner does not have any case for grant of any interim order for continuance in service as a daily wager.

Unless it is shown by the appellant that he was appointed after following any regular procedure for such appointment, OR unless it is shown by the appellant that the decision of the Screening Committee was not correct, we are also of the opinion that there is no cause left for continuing the interim order and, therefore, to that extent we agree with the learned Single Judge.

The basic argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in some other case some other petitioner has been granted an interim order which is still continuing, and therefore the same should have been continued in the present case.

The fact that somebody else has managed to wrongly obtain an interim order in some other case, is not a sufficient ground for granting an interim order where it is demonstrated that there is no case made out for grant or continuance of any interim order.

The learned counsel for the appellant has then urged that a direction should be issued to the learned Single Judge to hear and dispose of the Writ Petition expeditiously.

Merely because this Division Bench is empowered to hear an appeal against orders passed by learned single Judges of this Court, it does not mean that those Judges of this Court becomes subordinate to the Division Bench.

Accordingly, propriety requires that no such direction should be issued.

However, it will be open to the appellant to apply before the learned Single Judge for expeditious hearing of the writ petition.

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.