SATISH PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking following reliefs:

(2.) THE contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner is serving on the post of LDC as daily wager since December, 1988. He has also passed requisite typing examination conducted by the Education Department and in that regard he has filed certificate dated 27.8.1991 (Annexure P -3). The contention of learned counsel is that the then CMO vide Annexure P -1 and P -2 has certified that the petitioner has worked under him. By inviting my attention to Annexure P -6 which a resolution of the Municipality dated 25.7.1995, it has been contended that unanimously it was resolved by the members of the Standing Committee that the employees who are serving for last 5 years on the post of LDC their services may be regularised and a letter be sent to the State Government for according sanction in that regard. It has been further canvassed by learned counsel that the petitioner is serving as daily wager on the post LDC from December, 1988, thus his services should have been regularised. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Shakeel Baksh v. State of M.P. and others [WP No. 1047/2001]. Learned counsel has further contended that despite filling up the post for regularizing the petitioner on the post of LDC, the respondent No.2 issued an advertisement (Annexure P -8) for the recruitment to the post of LDC and vide order dated 2nd May, 1997 recruited five persons on the post of LDC. The contention of learned counsel is that the justification which has been made by respondents in their return is that Saheb Rao Pandagare was more meritorious to the petitioner. But, on bare perusal of Annexure R -2 (b) the name of said Saheb Rao Pandagare is not there, therefore, it cannot be said that he is more meritorious.

(3.) SO far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the selection process is bad in law and the candidates who were appointed have been wrongly appointed is without any substance for the simple reason that petitioner has not arrayed those persons as party to the petition. How and in what manner the selection process was not in accordance with the law and was arbitrary, nothing has been pointed out. Thus, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner in that regard is hereby rejected.