SUDHIR CHANDRA MAHATO Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are altogether four writ petitions. The subject matter of challenge in all the four writ petitions is regularisation of the service of the respective Petitioners. In W.P. No. 7666 (W) of 2002 the appropriate authority considered the representation in compliance with the earlier order of the Court in an erstwhile writ petition but rejected the plea. In W.P. No. 7642 (W) of 2002 and in W.P. No. 8709 (W) of 2002 no erstwhile writ was made but due to failure to consider the case, an appeal was made before an appropriate authority for due consideration which is yet pending. So far as W.P. No. 8121 (W) of 2002 is concerned the Petitioners' case has not been considered at all. Excepting first one in these matters no other writ petitions were previously made. Therefore, excepting the technicalities no factual difference is there in between the first matter and the rest of the three matters. Therefore, all are taken up for analogous hearing.

(2.) GROUNDS of the rejection by the Governmental authority in the first matter will be reflected from the order as follows:

(3.) TAKING the advantage of such situation, now, the respective Petitioners are insisting regularisation of their respective services in the post of 'Sahayak' which is different from 'Gram Panchayat Karmee'. This is nothing but back -door appointments. According to the Petitioners, two circulars were issued by the state authorities being dated September 13, 2000 and November 10, 2000 which are governing the field of regularisation of service who were irregularly appointed earlier. At no point of time it is the case of the Petitioners that they are regularly appointed. But when the Government has taken a policy of regularisation of the service of themselves who were irregularly appointed but worked for more than 240 days, the question of irregular or backdoor appointment cannot sustain.