JUDGMENT
N.K. Mehrotra, J.
1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 28.3.2003 passed by the Deputy Director (Construction), Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow as contained in Annexure No. 11 to this writ petition and also for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service.
2. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged as Junior Engineer w.e.f. 1.3.1996 on muster-roll basis in Mandi Parishad. His services were terminated on 30.11.1997. According to the petitioner, his services were terminated under the orders of the State Government dated 12.2.1999. Several other employees were also terminated on the basis of that order so several writ petitions were filed in which the Government Order dated 12.2.1999 was challenged and this Court in Writ Petition No. 1346 (SS) of 1999 and other connected matter, quashed the Government Order dated 12.2.1999. The petitioner alongwith other employees of Mandi Parishad also filed a Writ Petition No. 5281 (SS) of 2000 seeking the benefit of the judgment dated 11.8.2000 in Writ Petition No. 1346 (SS) of 1999. This writ petition was disposed of with the direction to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the directions issued in the judgment dated 11.8.2000, The services of Chandra Shekhar Pant, Ram Saran, Shiv Shanker, Adarsh Kumar Singh who worked on muster-roll alongwith the petitioner in ‘Apna Bazar Project’ were also terminated in December, 1997. Chandra Shekhar Pant filed Writ Petition No. 441(SS) of 1999 seeking the benefit of the judgment dated 11.8.2000 in Writ Petition No. 1346 (SS) of 1999. This writ petition was allowed on 15.9.2000 on the ground that he should be provided the job if the persons junior to the petitioner were already working. Shri Chandra Shekhar Pant was reinstated on 6.2.2001. Shri Ram Saran, Shiv Sanker and Adarsh Kumar Singh who were working in Apna Bazar Project and whose services were also terminated also filed writ petition and they have been taken back in service. It is also alleged that Rang Nath Dwivedi, Triveni Singh Deo Kumar Singh and Parasu Ram Singh whose services were terminated in the year 1997, have been taken back in service in pursuance of the order dated 15.9.2000 passed in Writ Petition No. 5281 (SS) of 2000. The petitioner was denied the reinstatement vide order dated 23.1.2001 (Annexure No. 4). He moved a representation to the Director (Annexure No. 5). No action was taken by the Director, therefore, the petitioner filed Second Writ Petition No. 5899 (SS) of 2001 and alleged discrimination with other similarly circumstanced employees. This writ petition was also disposed of vide judgment dated 29.11.2002 (Annexure No. 6) with a direction to decide the representation pending before the Director, Mandi Parishad. The petitioner moved an application dated 3.12.2002 for compliance of the judgment and sent several reminders. When no action was taken, he filed a contempt petition. It is after the contempt notice, the Dy. Director Construction, Mandi Parishad passed the order dated 28.2.2003 and the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement in the service was rejected. The copy of the order of the Deputy Director is Annexure No. 11, which is impugned in this writ petition. It is also alleged that in the case of Km. Parmila Verma, the representation was dismissed on the same ground that the S.L.P. is pending before the Supreme Court. Kumari Pramila Verma filed a writ petition and her writ petition has been allowed vide judgment dated 23.5.2003 in W.P. No. 4538 (SS) of 2001 (Annexure No. 13). The petitioner made a fresh representation after the judgment in the case of Pramila Verma, which is Annexure No. 14. When no action was taken on the last representation after the decision of Pramila Verma, this writ petition has been filed.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri N.C. Mehrotra, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.
4. This fact is admitted that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in Self Financed Apna Bazar Project on 1.3.1996 and he was removed from service on 30.11.1997 on the closure of the project and because of want of funds. The other employees of Mandi Parishad whose services were terminated on the direction of the Government in the order dated 12.2.1999, had filed a Writ Petition No. 1346 (SS) of 1999, Mukesh Kumar v. Mandi Parishad and Ors., and in that case the Government Order dated 12.2.1999 was quashed on the ground of being arbitrary and discriminatory but the contention of the petitioner that he is also entitled to take the benefit of judgment dated 11.8.2000 is baseless because in Writ Petition No. 1346 (SS) of 1999, this Court was considering the case of those employees whose services were terminated on the direction of the Government vide order dated 12.2.1999. Since the services of the petitioner were terminated on 30.11.1997, so his case cannot be similar to the case of those persons whose services were terminated on the direction of the Government vide G.O. dated 12.2.1999. I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be given advantage of the judgment dated 12.2.1999 in Writ Petition No. 1346 (SS) of 1999, Mukesh Kumar v. Mandi Parishad and Ors..
5. The next contention of the petitioner is that he has been discriminated vis-a-vis the other employees who were given muster-roll appointment in Apna Bazar Project and whose services were terminated on the closure of the Project and who have been given appointment after the judgment in their petitions. This position has been explained in the impugned order by saying that Mandi Parishad had filed an appeal against the order dated 11.8.2000 in Writ Petition No. 1346 (SS) of 1999, Mukesh Kumar v. Mandi Parishad and Ors., and that special appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench and the S.L.P. was not filed. In the meantime, several other petitions filed the writ petitions and judgments were pronounced in the light of the judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 1346 (SS) of 1999, Mukesh Kumar v. Mandi Parishad and Ors., and because the S.L.P. was not being filed, the compliance were made but subsequently, in the judgment of a Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 1093 (SB) of 1999, Anshuman Mishra v. State of U.P., the Division Bench of this Court followed the judgment of earlier Division Bench in Raja Ram Maurya v. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, (1998) I UPLBEC 690. Therefore, the Mandi Parishad decided to challenge the judgment in Writ Petition No. 1346 (SS) of 1999, Mukesh Kumar v. Mandi Parishad and Ors., and the order passed in appeal against this judgment and that the S.L.P. is still pending and the contempt proceedings which were initiated for non-compliance of the decision in several cases which were passed similar to the judgment dated 11.8.2000 passed in Writ Petition No. 1346 (SS) of 1999, Mukesh Kumar v. Mandi Parishad and Ors., were are stayed by the Supreme Court where the S.L.P. is pending.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that similar order was passed on the same ground against Km. Pramila Verma who filed a Writ Petition No. 5468 (SS) of 2001 and the learned Single Judge has quashed the order on the same ground by following the earlier Division Bench judgment in appeal against the judgment in Writ Petition No. 1346 (SS) of 1999, Mukesh Kumar v. Mandi Parishad and Ors., I am not inclined to follow the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 5468 (SS) of 2001, Km. Pramila Verma v. State of U.P., (Annexure No. 13) for the simple reason that the later Division Bench’s judgment in Writ Petition No. 1093 (SB) of 1999 has not been followed and this Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 1093 (SB) of 1999, Anshuman Misra v. State of U.P. and Ors., has followed the earlier Division Bench’s judgment in Raja Ram Maurya v. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, (1998) 1 UPLBEC 690. While the Hon’ble Single Judge had not considered the judgment of the earlier Division Bench (in Raja Ram Maurya v. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, (1998) 1 UPLBEC 690, as cited above) in Writ Petition No. 1346 (SS) of 1999, Mukesh Kumar v. Mandi Parishad and Ors..
7. Besides the above, I find that the petitioner has been a muster-roll employee appointed for Self Financed Apna Bazar Project. He worked from 1.3.1996 to 30.11.1997. He claims his reinstatement and regularization in service of Mandi Parishad. He is aggrieved by the alleged discrimination on the ground that the other similarly circumstance employees who were removed after the closure of the Apna Bazar Project, I am of the view that the appointment of the petitioner was itself in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution because he has not come through regular process of selection. The Service Regulations framed under Mandi Parishad prescribe a procedure for appointment. All these muster-roll employees are backdoor employees. Any appointment made without following prescribed procedure does not create any right to the petitioner [See Arvind Kumar v. The Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, U.P. Kisan Mandi Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and Ors., (1999) 2 UPLBEC 1040 and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Suresh Kumar Sharma, 1996 (2) SLR 321].
8. Further I find that the petitioner who was given appointment for the purpose of a project known as Apna Bazar Project. After the closure of the project, the petitioner cannot claim any right evens though the others have been given benefit on the basis of the some orders of the Court. In Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi (Administration), (1998) 4 SCC 1999, it was held that the employees who were given employment under a project have no right to claim their regularisation of their services. It was also held that right to work and livelihood is not yet recognised as fundamental right.
9. In State of U.P. v. Suresh Kumar Verma, 1996 (7) SCC 562, it has been held by the Supreme Court that if, the appointment is made in a project on daily wages against the rules and services are terminated on completion of the project, no relief of re-engagement can be granted. Similar view was taken in Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., (1997) 4 SCC 391. In State of Rajasthan v. Kunji Rahman, JT 1997 (1) SC 144, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the Rules of work-charged employees and regular establishment employees are different and the employees who have been given appointment for the purpose of project, have no right to claim parity with the regular establishment employees and they have no right to continue and claim regularisation after the project is over.
10. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and legal position, the writ petition
is dismissed at admission stage.