1
S.B. Civil writ petition No. 779/1997
Rakesh Kumar Sharma
vs
State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Date of Order : 25.2.2010
HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.
Mr.M.R. Singhvi,for the petitioner.
Mr.Rajesh Bhati, Asstt to AAG.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner was appointed as Sub-Engineer vide
office order dated 24.11.1978 and was appointed in the pay
scale of Rs.470-830 from the date of his joining. The
petitioner’s this appointment was ad hoc appointment and
also for a period of 3 months in the first instance or till the
regular candidates by selection committee are made
available, whichever is earlier, which is clear from Annex.1.
The petitioner continued in service without any interruption
upto to 27.1.19097 i.e., for about 9 years. Then on
27.1.1997, the petitioner was served with the notice that
since he is ad hoc appointee and regularly selected
candidates have come in the year 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982,
1988 and 1996, therefore why his services may not be
terminated. The copy of this notice is Annex.6. The
petitioner challenged the said notice Annex.6 by filing this
writ petition and this Court vide order dated 14.2.1997
stayed the operation of the notice. Now the petitioner has
2
completed services of about 31 years by now.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
appointee like the petitioner’s services could have been
regularized in view of the Rule 6 of the Rajasthan
Subordinate Engineering (Building and Road Branch) Service
Rules, 1973, wherein there is provision of screening of ad
hoc appointee for the purpose of giving regular
appointment. It is also submitted that thereafter also, the
State Government issued another notification dated
21.12.1989 providing that persons employed on work
charged basis in Public Works Department, Irrigation, Indira
Gandhi Nahar Board and who have put in at least two years
continuous service as on 1.4.1988 and such other
employees who have been working on lower posts in the
department and possesses the requisite qualifications for
direct recruitment to any of the post of Driver, Tracers,
Ferryman, Junior Draftsman, Laboratory Assistant,
Laboratory Attendant etc may be considered once only for
appointment on these posts against direct recruitment
quota including the persons who are appointed under the
Rajasthan Engineering Subordinate Service (Irrigation
Branch) Rules, 1967 and Rajasthan Subordinate Engineering
(B&R Branch) Service Rules, 1973. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submitted that petitioner since then was
selected in regular pay and ad hoc appointment was not
illegal appointment and there is a procedure of
3
regularization by screening in the rules and petitioner has
completed services of more than 31 years in the same
department, therefore, it is a fit case for consideration for
regularization on the post of Sub-Engineer or Engineering
Subordinate or on the equivalent post if any name has been
changed of the post.
Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
petitioner had opportunity to seek regularization, but he did
not apply for the regularization and further number of
persons were made available in due course of time duly
selected under the rules and, therefore, the petitioner is not
entitled for any relief.
I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the facts of the case. The petitioner is
in service since last 31 years. He continued in service for
almost 10 years with no bar of removal or any order of
restrained against the respondents. The petitioner’s
services were sought to be terminated for the first time by
notice Annex.6 dated 27.1.1997. From notice dated
27.1.1997 itself it is clear that even after availability of the
regularly selected candidates in the years 1979, 1980,
1981, 1982, 1988 and 1996, the petitioner’s services were
not terminated on the ground of availability of regularly
selected candidates. It may be unjust to terminate the
services of the petitioner after his services of 31 years in
the department and particularly when time to time the
4
employer Government itself took decision to regularize such
ad hoc and temporary appointee in the same services
appointed under the same rules in which the petitioner has
been appointed and the position has been made clear by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of
Karnakata Vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1.
Consequently, this writ petition of the petitioner is
allowed and the impugned notice Annex.6 is set aside. The
respondents are directed to screen the petitioner and on
being found successful in the screening, the petitioner be
given regular appointment.
[PRAKASH TATIA], J.
cpgoyal/-