DEEP SHIKHA BILAIYA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER the elected body came into office in Municipal Corporation, Katni, 393 appointments were made on daily wage in different departments of the Corporation including the schools run by it. They were paid monthly wages calculated on the basis of daily wages. When it came to the notice of the State Government, it directed for enquiry and in the enquiry it came to light that appointments were made on daily wages illegally without any sanction from the State Government. State Government by letter dated 8 -3 -1999 wrote to the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation to remove all 393 employees who were appointed on daily wages after the election of the Corporation. In pursuance of the aforesaid order of the State Government, Commissioner of the Corporation passed an order on 8 -4 -1999 stating therein that all the employees appointed after the election of the present Corporation, on the expiry of the period of one month; shall stand removed from service. Petitioners were appointed on daily wages after the aforesaid election and they being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Commissioner have filed these writ petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India and seek its quashing.

(2.) I have heard Shri M.K. Agrawal, Shri A.G. Dhande, Shri Umakant Sharma, Shri R.P. Khare, Shri R.L. Gupta, Shri M. Pateria, Smt. J. Choudhary, Shri P.N. Dubey, Shri K.P. Singh, Shri C.B. Gumasta, Shri B.K. Dubey, Smt. D.K. X Bohrey and Shri Ranjan Banerji in support of the writ petitions whereas Shri V.S. Shroti and Shri Sanjay Agrawal had appeared for respondent -Corporation.

(3.) EVEN if I proceed on the assumption that the provisions of the Rules do not apply to the respondent -Corporation still the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India obliges every State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India to follow the procedure, which is in tune with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is not in controversy that in the present case appointments have been made by a Municipal Corporation which is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In view of the fact that the Corporation has chosen to appoint 393 persons on daily wages without specifying the period for which they were appointed, it was incumbent upon it to follow one or the other known procedure of selection. It is not the nomenclature but the substance of appointment which is required to be seen. In case appointment made on daily wage is to last then in that case one is required to follow procedure known to law. However, no procedure known to law has been followed. This renders the appointment illegal.