Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 183 of 2010
Petitioner :- Vimla Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- R.S. Ram
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
The petitioner having not been selected for the post of Lab Attendant has filed
this writ petition challenging the selection and appointment of respondent no.
4 on the said post contending that the petitioner is more qualified having
passed Class 5th and has experience working as daily wage employee from
1991 to 1996. He further contended that in view of the Government Order
dated 30.11.1994 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) the petitioner was entitled
to be regularised but ignoring the same, the petitioner has not been regularised
and in the present selection also she has not been selected.
In my view, the writ petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed in
limine. Firstly, considering the submission with respect to regularisation
based on Government Order dated 30.11.1994, a perusal thereof makes it
clear that certain Class III and Class IV posts were sanctioned for a limited
period and it was directed the the same may be filled in accordance with rules.
Para 3 thereof further provides that to the extent the appointments are made in
Class III and Class IV post in view of the said Government Order, the daily
wage employees shall be dispensed with and shall stand reduced. There is
nothing in the aforesaid Government Order which provides for regularisation
of already working daily wage employee in the institution. Even otherwise,
such regularisations could not have been made since the engagement of daily
wage employees having been made without advertising the vacancies and
even otherwise there was no vacancy at all since the post for the first time was
created in November 1994, the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution
having not been complied with, the question of regularisation does not arise at
all as held by the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma
Devi 2006 (4) SCC 1, wherein it was held as under :
“Unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among
qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual
appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or
appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued.
Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of
appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage
worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be
absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the
original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the
relevant rules.”
An engagement made without following the procedure giving equal
opportunity of employment to all eligible persons does not confer any right
upon the incumbent to claim regularisation.
So far as non selection of the petitioner is concerned, suffice it to mention that
the petitioner has been considered for selection and appointment and that is
the only right conferred upon the petitioner. There is nothing on record to
point out that the respondent no. 4 could not have been selected or there is any
illegality in his selection. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ
petition. Dismissed.
Dt. 6.1.2010
PS-183/2010