STATE OF MANIPUR Vs. HIDANGMANYM BRAJAMANI SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner-respondent herein, who holds a degree of Bachelor of Engineering in Electrical, was appointed, vide order, dated 18. 11. 80, as a Technical Assistant in the Public Works Department (hereinafter referred to as 'the PWD') of the State Government, his appointment being as work-charged employee. As many as nine persons, who were appointed as Section Officers on work-charged basis, were regularized against existing vacancies. As the said 9 persons were, according to the petitioner, junior to him and as the petitioner considered non-regularization of his service as an act of discrimination by the State Government, the petitioner came to this Court, with the help of an application made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking appropriate directions to the State respondents commanding them to regularize the service of the petitioner. This application gave rise to W. P (C) No. 1212 of 2000.

(2.) THE appellants herein, who were respondents in the said writ petition, resisted the prayer for regularization made by the petitioner contending, inter alia, that the regularization of the said nine work-charged employees was against posts of Section Officers, but in the case of the writ petitioner, since there was no recruitment rule, his service could not be regularized. Though the State had earlier a policy for regularization of the services of work-charged employees on completion of a period of 10 years, this policy was subsequently withdrawn. Withdrawal of this policy came to be challenged by way of various writ petitions. While these writ petitions were still pending, a learned Single Judge, who heard the present writ petition, took the view that on account of the fact that the service of persons, junior to the writ petitioner, had already been regularized, the service of the petitioner too ought to have been regularized. Having reached this conclusion, the learned Single Judge directed the State respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner within a period of 45 days. The direction, so given, is under challenge, in the present appeal, by the State Government.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. Asok Potsangbam, learned Advocate General, Manipur, for the appellants, and Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned counsel, for the writ petitioner-respondent.