KARTIK CHANDRA SINGHA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ Petitioner has approached this Court seeking, inter alia, issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent authorities to regularise his appointment in the educational institution where he has stated to be working for the past five years as a Group-D staff (Peon). In this context, be has annexed a couple of certificates issued by the Secretary as well as the Headmaster of the school to the writ petition as evidence of his employment in the school as peon/attendant on a temporary basis.

(2.) Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ Petitioner submits that having been allowed to continue in service for around five years, the writ Petitioner has a right to claim regularisation of his service that he has been rendering to the school. He submits that the writ petition has been filed before this Court on 23rd December, 2008, and at that point of time, recruitment of non-teaching staff of the school was governed by the recruitment policy of the Government, as enumerated in the guidelines issued by the Director of School Education on 1st November, 1999, and although the writ Petitioner made a representation before the concerned District Inspector of Schools, the same was not considered by the said authority.

(3.) The learned Advocate for the writ Petitioner refers to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandeu and Ors., 2007 11 SCC 92. Referring to the judgment, he submits that in the facts of that case, the writ Petitioner, who had been working for long years in temporary service made a claim for regularization, which was initially denied by the U.P. State Electricity Board. The Supreme Court, however, observed that it would surely not be reasonable if the writ Petitioner's claim for regularization was denied, even after such a long period of service. The Supreme Court had gone on to observe that apart from discrimination, Article 14 of the Constitution would also be violated on the ground of arbitrariness and unreasonableness, if employees who had put in such a long service were denied the benefit of regularisation and were made to face the same selection which fresh recruits have to face. Learned Advocate submits that with the above observations, the Supreme Court had proceeded to dismiss the appeal preferred by the U.P. State Electricity Board. He thus submits that the said judgment is squarely applicable in the facts of the case and that the writ Petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.