KISHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that on 01/10/1996 he was appointed as daily wager and has worked on the post of Cook/Water Boy/Watchman. It is submitted that in spite of fact that the petitioner worked efficiently, but his services were discontinued in the year 2000 and the petitioner was once again appointed in Adamjati Kalyan Vibhag in the year 2004 and is working for the last more than 10 years as daily wager. It is submitted that some of the similarly situated persons have been regularized by the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed on 1.10.1996 and his services were terminated in the year 2000 and again the petitioner approached the concerning officer for reappointment and his prayer was graciously accepted and again he was appointed as daily wager by order dated 19.7.2004. It is submitted that in spite of repeated representations made by the petitioner, no heed has been paid and, accordingly, the petition has been filed seeking the above mentioned relief.

(3.) Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the State that in the entire petition, the petitioner has not claimed that his services were not back door entry. It is not the case of the petitioner that before appointment of the petitioner, public advertisement was issued inviting applications from General Public. Services of the petitioner were discontinued on the ground that he was illegally appointed as daily wager and without considering that aspect, he was given reappointed on 19.7.2004 on the ground that his services were discontinued without making payment of compensation. The appointing authority did not consider the fact that original appointment of the petitioner was illegal and it was a back door entry as daily wager employee. In the light of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, the petitioner is not entitled for regularization.