RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal is directed against a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18 October 2006 by which a petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution has been dismissed.

(2.) THE appellant before the Court was a daily wager who had worked as a Peon under the Board of Revenue from 15 August 1980 till 31 October 1983 and again from 1 April 1984 till 31 December 1986. On 1 July 1983, the appellant submitted a representation to the Secretary, Board of Revenue for his regularization on the ground that several persons junior to him were appointed on the regular post of Peon. The appellant again filed a representation dated 17 August 1985 and eventually filed a writ petition (Writ Petition No. 1242 of 1987) seeking regularization in service. During the pendency of the writ petition, he was served with an order dated 2 March 1987 stating that he had been dispensed with from service with effect from 25 February 1987. The appellant amended the said writ petition to challenge the legality of the order of termination. The petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 6 November 1989. The Division Bench noted the submission of the appellant that persons who had been appointed subsequent to the appointment of the appellant as daily wage workers had been regularized in spite of which his representation had not been disposed of. The Division Bench held that non -consideration of the representation of the appellant was arbitrary and allowed the writ petition by directing that the representation made by the appellant shall be considered and disposed of within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of the said order. In pursuance thereto, by a communication dated 13 March 1990, the appellant was informed that there was no provision for regularization under the rules but his case for regular appointment was considered by the Selection Committee and he was not found suitable for regular appointment. This led to the institution of the second writ petition [Writ Petition No. 5704 (S/S) of 1998] which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 18 October 2006. The learned Single Judge has held that the appellant who was a daily wage employee was not found suitable for appointment, hence his services were terminated and since he was not found fit and suitable, he could not have been regularized.

(3.) FOR these reasons, we find no merit in the special appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.