NAVAL KISHOR PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the order dtd. 14/9/2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing Writ Petition No.422 of 2011, the writ petitioner has filed this appeal.

(2.) It is the case of the writ petitioner that he was granted appointment on daily wages on 13/3/1993 against the sanctioned vacant post. Thereafter, the services of the writ petitioner was confirmed as Peon vide order dtd. 29/12/1998. His appointment was cancelled vide order dtd. 24/3/1999 and 1/6/1999 against which he filed a civil suit before the Civil Judge, Class-II, Bhopal. The civil suit was decreed by judgment and decree dtd. 17/4/2001 and the order of cancellation was set aside. Thereafter, respondents preferred a first appeal which was dismissed vide judgment dtd. 24/11/2001. Second appeal preferred by him was dismissed vide judgment dtd. 5/8/2003. Thereafter, they preferred an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed on 14/7/2010 with an observation that the writ petitioner was working under the respondents prior to 1995. Thereafter, again the respondents have issued notices Annexures P/7 and P/9 dtd. 5/10/2010 and 2/11/2010 respectively observing that the appointment of the writ petitioner was contrary to the rules. The aforesaid notices were duly replied by the writ petitioner. It was pointed out that in pursuance to the order dtd. 29/12/1998, he is performing his duties as Peon till date. It is his case that once the order of cancellation of his appointment was set aside in a civil suit and the judgment and decree passed by the civil suit dtd. 17/4/2001 has attained finality upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court then the respondents were having no authority to issue impugned notices Annexure P/7 and Annexure P/9 dtd. 5/10/2010 and 2/11/2010 respectively therefore, the writ petition was preferred praying for the following reliefs :-

(3.) The writ court has taken up the matter in analogous hearing with other writ petitions and has dismissed the writ petition considering the fact that in the first appeal the liberty was granted to the respondents to initiate proceedings against the writ petitioner and provide him opportunity of hearing and thereafter pass a fresh order. It was further observed that in pursuance to the policy issued by the Government dtd. 7/10/2016, the writ petitioner has already been granted the status of Sthai Karmi vide order dtd. 23/6/2018 and the same was duly accepted by the writ petitioner. Therefore, no relief could have been extended to the petitioner in the writ petition.