HARI NARAYAN SAKYA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS batch of 17 Writ Petitions (1) W. P. 1808/98 (Maniram Jatav v. State of M. P. and Ors.), (2) W. P. No. 5785/98 (Ramavtar Sahu v. State of M. P. and Ors.), (3) W. P. No. 5790/98 (Mst. Mushtari Begum v. State of M. P. and Ors.), (4) W. P. No. 5804/98 (Mataprasad Sahu v. State of M. P. and Ors.), (5) W. P. No. 5815/98 (Moreshwar Barasker v. State of M. P. and Ors.), (6) W. P. No. 5838/98 (Shyamraj Chichkhere v. State of M. P. and Ors.), (7) W. P. No. 5949/98 (Ramkishore Kori v. State of M. P. and Ors.), (8) W. P. No. 5951/98 (Rajaram Kori v. State of M. P. and Ors.), (9) W. P. No. 5957/98 (Hari Narayan Sakya v. State of M. P. and Ors. ). , (10) W. P. No. 5973/98 (Vinod Babu Sharma v. State of M. P. and Ors.), (11) W. P. No. 5976/98 (Ghanshyam Das Ahirwar v. State of M. P. and Ors.), (12) W. P. No. 5989/98 (Sampatlal Kulaste v. State of M. P. and Ors.), (13) W. P. No. 5999/98 (Mansaram v. State of M. P. and Ors.), (14) W. P. No. 6003/98 (Shyam Singh Bhadoriya and Ors. v. State of M. P. and Ors.), (15) W. P. No. 6082/98 (Krishna Kumar Verma v. State of M. P. and Ors.), (16) W. P. No. 619/99 (Smt. Aasha Chandani v. State of M. P. and Ors.), (17) W. P. No. 659/99 (Ghanshyam Vanaskar v. State of M. P. and Ors.) is proposed to be decided by this order since they are common in nature and the question for determination in all of them is the same.

(2.) SOME of the petitioners were appointed against regular pay scales, while others were appointed on daily wage basis by different orders, as dispensary servants, Class IV post under the State Government. Those who were appointed for 89 days were continued in that capacity for number of years and then regularised. Petitioners in W. P. No. 5804/98 and W. P. No. 5815/98 were also promoted to the post of Compounder (Ayurved) and Compounder (Homoeopathy) respectively. These appointments were questioned and the matter was raised in the State Vidhan Sabha at some stage sequel to which a Committee was appointed to look into the matter. The Committee examined the matter and found that these appointments were illegally made. Consequently, the Order dated March 23, 1998 (Annexure P-8) was passed terminating the services of the petitioners.

(3.) PETITIONERS challenged the action of the respondents before the M. P. State Administrative Tribunal, Bhopal, through different applications which have been dismissed. Accepting the case of the respondents, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that these were illegal appointments, petitioners were not qualified, therefore, they had no right to continue in service. Consequently, action taken was justified. Petitioners have challenged the decision through these petitions.