RAYEES KHAN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, the writ petitions were analogously heard and by this common order, they are being disposed of by this Court. Facts of Writ Petition No. 1017 / 2010 are narrated hereunder.

(2.) The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 21/1/2010, terminating the petitioner's services from the post of Vehicle Driver.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed w.e.f. 1/1/1996 on the post of Vehicle Driver on contractual basis under the District Hospital, Rajgarh in a scheme known as 'District Blindness Control Society'. Petitioner has further stated that he was permitted to continue uninterruptedly in service and he was regularised / absorbed on the post of Driver by an order dt. 1/10/2003 passed by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Rajgarh. The contention of the petitioner is that a Show Cause Notice was issued on 24/4/2006 informing the petitioner that his regularization is not proper and he was directed to file a reply. The petitioner did file a reply to the Show Cause Notice and thereafter the respondents did nothing in the matter. Petitioner has further stated that a similar Show Cause Notice was issued on 2/1/2010 and the petitioner again submitted a reply on 8/1/10, however, the respondents after considering the reply of the petitioner, have passed the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised various grounds before this court and his contention is that in the year 2006 some enquiry was conducted by the Collector in respect of the absorptions of class 3 and 4 employees by the then Chief Medical & Health Officer and based upon the enquiry conducted by the Collector, Show Cause Notices were issued to large number of employees. Petitioner has further stated that services of some of the employees were put to an end and the petitioner has enclosed one such order passed in WP No. 3250 / 2006 (s) Ku. Priyanka Dixit Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and his contention is that the order terminating the service of Priyanka Dixit was set aside by this Court and Priyanka Dixit, who was regularised along with the petitioner, is still continuing in service and, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to continue in service as in his case also some enquiry was conducted by the Collector behind his back and as the same has been made the basis for discontinuing the petitioner from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued before this court that at the relevant point of time when the petitioner's case for regularization was considered in the light of the policy of the State Government dt. 5/6/03, there were vacancies available in the Department. Petitioner has enclosed Annexure-F along with the additional rejoinder, a document obtained under the Right to Information Act and the same establishes that two vacancies had incurred in respect of the post of Driver. Another document which Annexure G also establishes that the vacancies of Driver were available at the relevant point of time when the petitioner was regularised on the post of Driver. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court that absorption of the petitioner has attained finality could not have been re-opened in the manner and method as it has been done, as the apex court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and others, 2006 4 SCC 1, has held that the regularization if already done will not be open / reopened based upon the aforesaid judgment. The contention of the petitioner is that he was regularised against a vacant post by a competent authority who is competent to appoint a Driver and as identically placed persons are continuing in service the impugned order deserves to be set aside.