SURENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to take the petitioners in service or in alternative, direct the respondents to consider and decide their representations filed on 08.12.2010 (Annexure P/4).

(2.) THE facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioners are that the petitioners were appointed in the year 1992. In the year 2002, the petitioners were removed from service without any reason. Vide the memo dated 03.05.2006, issued by the respondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 5, it was directed to remove the daily wagers only after proper scrutiny. Despite that, the petitioners have not been taken back into service, though they have filed number of representation to the respondent authorities. Ultimately, the petitioners filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6500/2010 which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue their representations, on 15.11.2010. After withdrawal of the representation, the petitioners again filed a representation on 08.12.2010 but the same has not been decided till date. Pursuant to the circular dated 05.03.2008 (Annexure P/5) number of similarly situated employees were regularized but the petitioners have been deprived of the benefit of the said circular.

(3.) IN State of Rajasthan & Others v. Daya Lal & Others, the Supreme Court having considered all the questions with regard to regularization of employees not appointed in an open competitive process and dehors the constitutional scheme of employment, relying on its various earlier decisions, held as under: