KISHAWAR SINGH Vs. LAW AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DEPT.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dtd. 20/6/2016 whereby his representation has been rejected by the Collector, Dhar.

(2.) Vide order dtd. 13/6/2003, the petitioner was appointed against the temporary post of Assistant Grade-3 in District Election Office Dhar by the Collector. The appointment was purely on contractual basis was up to 30/6/2003. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed vide order dtd. 4/8/2003 on same terms and conditions from 1/7/2003 to 31/12/2003 by Deputy District Election Officer, Dhar. The petitioner has also filed the copy of order dtd. 23/4/2014 whereby he was again appointed against the temporary post of Assistant Grade-3 on contractual basis up to 31/10/2014. The petitioner has not filed any document to show that between 31/12/2003 to 23/4/2014 he was appointed to do the election work as Assistant Grade-3 on contract basis.

(3.) The petitioner approached this Court by way of W.P. No.1382/2015 for claiming regular appointment. Vide order dtd. 17/6/2015, the writ petition was disposed of by directing respondents to examine the claim of the petitioner in comparison to the claim of other employees who were regularized and other orders and take action for consideration of the claim of the petitioner also. It was also observed that in case petitioner is also identically situated, grant relief to the petitioner or else record reasons for non-grant of benefits. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the Collector Dhar considered the claim of the petitioner and rejected vide impugned order dtd. 20/6/2016 on the ground that vide circular dtd. 29/7/1994 only the preference is liable to be given to the surplus employees kept in "B-1" category and there is no such exemption from participating in selection process. Hence this petition before this Court.