BIPIN BIHARI SRIVASTAVA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE BASTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal has been filed against the decision of the learned Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant by which he prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the District Judge, Basti, to appoint him as Class III employee. In the year 1983, the then District Judge, Basti held a regular selection for the post of Class III cadre of Basti Judgeship The result of the selection was declared in June 1983 The appellant was selected and he was placed at serial number 35. The vacancy to the post was to be filled up in accordance with the seniority and the vacancy had to be filled up within a period of one year. The selection list was to continue for one year. In the year 1984, one Durga Prasad Gupta took leave for five days. The appellant was appointed on his leave vacancy and the appellant worked on (the said leave vacancy from 22-4-1984 to 26-4-1984, Sri Durga Prasad Gupta resumed his duties on 27-4-1984. The appellant claims that he was appointed within a period of one year and therefore he was entitled to continue in the service. He placed reliance upon Rule 14 of the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 wich reads as under :-

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant urged that if the appellant has worked even for a single day in whatever capacity, he shall be deemed to have been absorbed in the service. Rule 14 (3) of the Rules contemplates a regular appointment on the basis of (the selection but if any candidate has been appointed on a leave vacancy his appointment shall not be taken as a regular appointment on the basis of the selection. He is not being appointed on a vacant post. He works on a leave vacancy of an employee who is already holding that post. THE selection list which was prepared in the year 1983 exhausted itself after the expiry of one year and the appellant was not entitled to get any appointment after the expiry of one year under sub-Rule 3 of Rule 14 of the Rules.

(3.) THE appellant continued to work on daily wages. THE Government sanctioned the post of 7 paper Copyists. THE appellant appeared in the said selection but he was not selected. Those candidates who were selected were given appointments but as the appellant was not selected in the selection which was held in the year 1985 he was not given any further Job of the copyist. THE learned counsel for the appellant urged that he was entitled to be absorbed in the service as he was working on daily wages basis as a copyist. He placed reliance upon Jacob M Puthuparambil v. Kerala Water Authority. 1991 (1) SCC 28 In this case the Supreme Court on interpretation of Section 9 (a) (1) of the Kerala Water Supply and Severage Act, 1986 held that those Employees who were in long continuous service of the Authority their services should be regularised by the Authority. THE Supreme Court Itself distinguished the case of P. K. Narayani v State of Kerala, 1984 (Supp.) SCC 212, where the employees who were working for past few years challenged the action of the employer in terminating their services to make room for the candidates selected by the Kerala Public Service Commission. THE Supreme Court directed that those petitioners and all other employees similarly placed should be allowed to appear in the next examination when the Public Service Commission may hold, without raising the age bar and till then the petitioners and others may continue in the service provided there are vacancies. In the present case, the appellant was given an opportunity but as he was not a selected candidate of the year 1984, he was not given appointment and regularly selected candidates were given appointment. THE appellant cannot claim any right on the basis that he had worked on daily wages.