KHALID AHMED KURESHI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following relief(s) :-

(2.) According to the petitioner, the necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that on 1-7-1999, he was appointed as daily wager employee in Municipal Council on the post of Asstt. Grade III (Wrongly mentioned as Teacher in writ petition). On 16-5-2007, the Urban Administration Department had issued detailed guidelines regarding regularization of daily wager employees. The President in Council by its resolution No. 158 dated 7-11-2009, sanctioned the names of 21 daily wager employees for their regularization in accordance with their respective seniority and roster. It is claimed that the name of the petitioner was at serial no. 13 whereas the names of the respondents no. 5 and 6 were at serial no. 14 and 15 respectively. The said resolution dated 7-11-2007 was kept pending and no action was taken till the year 2014, and again resolution no. 113 dated 4-10-2014 was passed by President in Council regarding the regularization of daily wager employees in those departments whose establishment expenditure is less than 65%. Accordingly, the names of 11 daily wagers were sanctioned for their regularization and accordingly, the respondent no. 3 prepared a list of 11 employees out of 21, for their regularization. It is claimed that athough the petitioner was senior, but the names of the respondents no. 5 and 6 were included and the petitioner was not included. As a consequence thereof, the C.M.O./respondent no. 4 issued an order dated 22-12-2014, thereby regularizing the services of 11 employees including the respondents no. 5 and 6 thereby appointing them on the post of Asstt. Revenue Inspector. Thus, this petition has been filed seeking regularization or in the alternative, for quashment of the regularization order of the respondents no. 5 an 6.

(3.) The respondent no. 4 has filed his return and submitted that previously 31 employees were regularized, then dispute arose and therefore, resolution no. 168 and 169 were passed and it was resolved that the case may be sent to Commissioner for enquiry. Thus, it is claimed that the regularization orders of respondents no. 5 and 6 have not become final. The respondent no. 4 has also relied upon the letters dated 28-11-2015 and 24-12-2016 which were written to the Commissioner, Urban Adniminstration and Environment Department. It is further claimed that the said enquiry is still pending.