MADHUKAR TALMALE Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legal validity and propriety of the order dated 18-2-2000 passed by the M. P. State Administrative Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal' ).

(2.) THE facts briefly ex-posited are that, the petitioner was appointed as Time Keeper for 89 days in the Public Works Department. He worked without any break and eventually by virtue of a circular dated 17-11-1988 qualifications having been relaxed he was regularised on 12-3-1989. However, as he was not confirmed and given seniority he knocked at the doors of the tribunal. Before the Tribunal the petitioner contended that he had requisite qualifications to be appointed on regular basis as Time Keeper inasmuch as he was governed by the Madhya Pradesh Public Works Department work charged and Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of service Rules, 1976. It was urged that the said Rules do not prescribe any qualification for the post of Time Keeper and, therefore, he should be deemed to be regularised from the date of his initial joining in the year 1983.

(3.) THE stand taken by the respondents before the Tribunal that the case of the petitioner would be governed by the rules called M. P. Work charged and Contingency Employees Pay Revision Rules, 1584. It is noteworthy to mention here that both the Members of the Tribunal wrote separate concurring judgments and held that the applicant/petitioner would be governed by the 1984 Rules and there was no error in fixing of his regularisation with effect from 12-3-1989.