PARAMJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Raghavendra Pradhan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. H.S.Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Sudeep Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

(2.) This appeal is presented against order dtd. 5/12/2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 8005 of 2018, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge reads as follows:

(3.) The case of the appellant, as presented in the writ petition, is that he was appointed (no date mentioned) as a daily-wage employee for clerical works on 'Collector Rate' by the Project Officer, District Rural Development Agency (for short, DRDA) and he continued to work as such till 31/1/2000. By an order dtd. 31/1/2000, issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh, his service was terminated and on a challenge being made in Original Application No. 1724/2000 before the State Administrative Tribunal, the termination order was set aside and he was reinstated in service. After rendering 14 years of service, he filed Writ Petition (S) No. 4969 of 2009 and the said writ petition was disposed of by an order dtd. 3/9/2009 providing that if the appellant makes a representation, such representation shall be decided in accordance with law. Thereafter, he filed a representation dtd. 3/11/2009 before the respondent No. 2 for regularising his service on his post on and from 5/3/2008 in terms of a circular dtd. 5/3/2008 issued by the State Government to regularise the services of the dailywage employees. On consideration of the said representation, the respondent No. 2 appointed him to the post of Assistant Grade III (for short, AG-III) by issuing an order dtd. 6/1/2010 and a condition, being condition No 6, was imposed to the effect that he shall have to pass examination in Hindi Typewriting @ 25 words per minute. Despite the completion of two years of probation, he had not been regularised and was also not granted increment on the ground that the appellant had not submitted a pass certificate of Data Entry Operator/Programming with speed of 5000 key depression per hour. It is pleaded that clause 3 of the circular dtd. 5/3/2008 issued by the General Administration Department provided that if any employee had the requisite qualification prior to 31/12/1997 and fulfills the criteria of that post, he shall be regularised on that post. It is stated that he had fulfilled conditions of the post he was holding. It is pleaded that as the appellant crossed the age of more than 45 years, he is exempted from passing examination in Hindi Typewriting in view of notification dtd. 29/1/1983; that the appellant had submitted certificates regarding passing of Hindi and English Typewriting at the time of his appointment as daily wage employee; that the appellant had submitted certificate of experience as a Typist-cum-Clerk for the period from October, 1991 to January 1994 and from April 1994 to April 1995, from the office of the District Literacy Committee, Raigarh, dtd. 26/12/1996.