DIPAKKUMAR C VYAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and/or order directing the respondents to regularize the appointment of the petitioner and grant him permanent post of peon from the date of his first representation.

(2.) It is case on behalf of the petitioner that since September 1987, he was working with the respondents as part time Sweeper in the office of the Deputy Engineer Express Way Bridge Department, No.14, Vadodara. It is submitted that in spite of the Government notifications and the circulars from time to time for conversion of part time employees into regular posts, the respondent authorities have been depriving the petitioner of such conversion. The petitioner has relied upon the notification of the State Government dated 25th September 1979 and relied upon clauses (b) and (c) of Rule 3. He has submitted that his services are required to be regularized and he should be appointed on permanent post. He has submitted that after about four years of his ad hod tenure, as his services were not regularized in accordance with the aforesaid notification, he preferred Special Civil Application No.12110 of 1994 and the said Special Civil Application came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 1-2-1996 directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. By communication dated 26th March 1996, he was communicated by the respondents that his services cannot be regularized as he is not falling within the eligibility criteria stipulated by the rules in the notification and thereafter, again he has made representations, which were rejected and therefore, it is requested to allow the present Special Civil Application as the petitioner's services are required to be regularized by further submitting that according to his information, in the office of Baroda Express Highway, Division No.5, one post of watchman was vacant since the watchman who was working has retired. Therefore, it is requested to allow the present Special Civil Application.

(3.) The petition is opposed by the respondents. The affidavit-in-reply is also filed. It is submitted that as the appointment of the petitioner was on purely temporary part time basis and his appointment was neither drawn from the Employment Exchange at the time of initial assignment of work and/or screen as per Recruitment Rules and therefore, he cannot claim for regularization as his initial appointment itself is illegal. Even, otherwise, it is submitted that merely because, the petitioner has worked on part time post temporarily, his services are not required to be regularized and that the Government notification dated 25th September 1979 upon which reliance has been placed is not applicable and/or he is not verifying the requisite criteria of the said notification and therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present Special Civil Application.