RAJENDRA PRASAD DUBEY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 22nd December, 2006 ( Annexure P/1) whereby his claim for regularisation is rejected by respondents Mandi.

(2.) SHRI Prateep Visoriya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner earlier filed Writ Petition No.4927/2005 before this Court. It was disposed of vide order dated 29th October, 2005 and the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for re - appointment/re -engagement pursuant to the policy dated 21st January, 2004 and finalise it within a stipulated time. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner's case is covered by the policy dated 21st January,2004 ( Annexure P/3) and he should have been taken back by the respondents. By placing reliance on the document Annexure P/4 dated 3rd May, 2006 written by Deputy Director, Mandi Board to the Secretary, Mandi Committee, Dabra, Shri Visoriya submits that one Omprakash Kori and Ramsewak Singh Gurjar have been taken back pursuant to the policy dated dated 21st January,2004 and the petitioner is similarly situated. Relying on these recommendations, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents should have maintained parity and should have taken the petitioner back in service/re -engaged. He criticised the rejection order Annexure P/1 on the ground that it does not contain any reason.

(3.) SHRI R.P.Rathi, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.1/State submits that the State is a formal party.