PANKAJ AWASTHY Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these batch of petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioners have challenged the advertisement Annexure -P/1, whereby respondent -Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur intends to fill up certain posts on which petitioners are admittedly working for more than a decade. The petitioners are seeking regularization on the relevant posts.

(2.) Shri Manoj Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners appeared in Writ Petition Nos.19063/2014 and 19066/2014 filed by the Sub Engineers. It is canvassed that the petitioners are working for more than a decade. They earlier filed Writ Petition No.15715/2007 and connected matters which were decided on 03.05.2010 (Annexure -P/2). This Court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with the relevant circulars and take a final decision for regularization in accordance with law within three months. Thereafter, by letter dated 29.11.2011, petitioners Anupam Shukla, Santosh Pandey and Pawan Shrivastava were informed that their names find place in the seniority list of Technical Employees at Nos.4, 6 and 8 respectively. Petitioners were informed that as per roster of availability of vacant post, they will be regularized as per their turn of seniority. The petitioner - Santosh Pandey filed a Contempt Petition No.1549/2011 which was disposed of on 20.02.2013. The petitioner was given liberty to take other recourse/remedy. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on 29.05.2013, a decision was taken in the meeting of Mayor -in -Council. In item No.866, the cases of regularization of technical employees was taken and it was decided to obtain permission from the Government for regularization of Anupam Shukla, Santosh Pandey, Pankaj Awasthy, Pawan Shrivastava, Shailendra Patel and Kedarnath Mandele. In pursuance to that, a letter was sent to the State Government on 24.09.2013 (Annexure -P/6). Shri Manoj Sharma contends that as per this letter, it is clear that there are 40 sanctioned regular posts of Sub Engineer, whereas 15 posts of Sub Engineers are sanctioned in the head of Planning/Scheme. By taking this Court to the State Government's order dated 18.06.2010, it is submitted that the Government made it clear that the decision regarding regularization of Class III & IV employees is to be taken at the level of local body/Divisional Dy. Director.

(3.) Shri Sanjay Ram Tamrakar, learned counsel for the petitioners appeared in W.P. Nos. 18411/2014, 321/2015, 329/2015, 334/2015 and 585/2015 relied on the order passed in W.P. No.4018/2014 dated 21.03.2014. Criticizing the stand taken in the return, it is common stand of the petitioners that the return is filed in a mechanical manner. A stereo - type/cyclostyle return is filed in all the cases. By drawing attention of this Court to Para 6 of the return, it is submitted that it is mentioned that as per Annexure -R/2/2 dated 29.11.2011, the name of petitioners do not find place in the seniority list. It is submitted that said document is other way round and it reflects the names of three petitioners.