JUDGMENT
R.B. Misra, J.
1. Heard Sri Anurag Upadhyay holding brief of Sri Ramesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.
2. It appears that petitioner was engaged as daily wager in the Public Works Department on 26th December, 1991. He was assigned the work of Walah-cum-Chowkidar and he was doing satisfactory service, however an order dated 20.7.1991 issued by Executive Engineer. Temporary Division, P.W.D., Etawah, to all the Assistant Engineer of relevant area whereby the maintainability and deployment of daily wagers were being against such modalities of deployment. The petitioner has approached and filed this writ petition.
3. Counter-affidavit has been filed. According to the respondent, the petitioner was engaged as a daily wager on the need of work and deployment of petitioner being a daily wager was on temporary basis. The service of the daily wager commences in the morning and comes to an end in the evening. The deployment of petitioner as a daily wager was made in view of the provisions of para Nos. 429 and 430 of Financial Hand Book Vol. VI and it was noticed that even when no work was available and without any need the deployment was being made putting pressure over the state exchequer. According to the petitioner, being a daily wager, he was paid wages for the days he was deployed. According to the respondent as a major of policy and in the interest of administration, the deployment of daily wager/muster role was to be regulated, as the petitioner/daily wager was not appointed after observing any procedure or by observance of any rules. The deployment of daily wager was a contractual deployment, which may come to an end every evening therefore, the order dated 20th July, 1991 passed. The daily wagers have no right to the post and even non-renewal of contractual deployment is not illegal or is not retrenchment in view of the decision of Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. v. Presiding Officer and Anr., (1997) 11 SCC 521. Here in the present case the circular letter dated 20th July. 1991 was only issued in respect of the modalities for payment to the daily wagers which pertains to the policy as well as the financial aspects of the matter.
4. In the economic aspects and in the matters of policy decision of State or any organization, the scope of judicial review is limited and circumscribed unless the policy decision is absolutely capricious, unreasonable and arbitrary and based on mere ipse dixit of the executive authority or is violative of any constitutional or statutory mandate, the Court’s interference is not called for as observed by the Supreme Court in M.P. Oil Extraction and Anr. v. State of M.P. and Ors., (1997) 7 SCC 592. The relevant extract of para 41 reads as below :
“……..The executive authority of the State must be held to be within its competence to frame a policy for the administration of the State. Unless the policy framed is absolutely capricious and, not being informed by any reason whatsoever, can be clearly held to be arbitrary and founded on mere ipse d.ixit of the executive functionaries thereby offending Article 14 of the Constitution or such policy offends other constitutional provisions or comes into conflict with any statutory provision, the Court cannot and should not outstep its limit and tinker with the policy decision of the executive functionary of the State. This Court, in no uncertain terms, has sounded a note of caution by indicating that policy decision is in the domain of the executive authority of the State and the Court should not embark on the unchartered ocean of public policy and should not question the efficacy or otherwise of such policy so long the same does not offend any provision of the statute or the Constitution of India. The supremacy of each of the three organs of the State, i.e., legislature, executive and judiciary in their respective fields of operation needs to be emphasized. The power of judicial review of the executive and legislative action must be kept within the bounds of constitutional scheme so that there may not be any occasion to entertain misgivings about the role of judiciary in outstepping its limit by unwarranted judicial activism being very often talked of in these days. The democratic set-up to which the policy is so deeply committed cannot function properly unless each of the three organs appreciate the need for mutual respect and supremacy in their respective fields.”
5. The Supreme Court following Tata Cellular v. Union of India. (1994) 6 SCC 651 has observed in Mansukhlal Vithalidas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 SCC 622 in respect of exercise of power under Article 226 by the High Court and under Article 32 by the Supreme Court observed that the Court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made, particularly as the Court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted, it will be substituting its own decision which itself may be fallible. The duty of the Court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be, (i) whether the decision-making authority exceeded its powers?; (ii) committed an error of law; (iii) committed a breach of the rules of natural justice; (iv) reached a decision which no reasonable Tribunal would have reached; or (v) abused its powers.
6. In view of the above observations, I do not find any illegality and impropriety in the aforesaid order: therefore, this Court is not inclined to invoke its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
7. The writ petition is dismissed.
