AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nagendra Roy, J.—Heard counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has challenged the communication, as contained in annexure 6 dated 15th July, 2000, whereby and whereunder his representation has been rejected refusing to appoint him on regular basis.
It appears that for the same self grievance, the petitioner earlier had come to this Court in CWJC No. 4410 of 1998 and this Court after examining the claim of the petitioner came to a conclusion that the petitioner was working on daily wages on contractual basis and payment, accordingly, was used to be made to him as per performance of his work and dismissed the writ application. The order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court was challenged in LPA No. 1241 of 1999, which also was dismissed with observation that if the State Government frames a scheme for regularisation of Class IV employees, the case of the petitioner should also be considered, if he is eligible for the same.
It appears that in light of the observation made by this Court in LPA No. 1241 of 1999, the petitioner filed his representation, which has been rejected by the impugned order.
It is not the case of the petitioner that the State Government has framed certain schemes to regularise Class IV employees like the petitioner.
The petitioner, in that view of the matter, is not entitled for any relief from this Court on the basis of the same facts, which have already been examined by this Court earlier.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, I do not find any merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed.