JARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioners, after completion of the requisite qualifying period, of, service, as, daily wagers, under, the respondents, became conferred the status, of, regular employees, against, substantive posts, and, on a substantive capacity. However, they were dis-regularized in the year 2013, and, obviously became reverted, from/as, regular Class-IV employees, to, as, daily waged workmen, under, the respondents. The petitioners, cast a challenge to Clause 10, and, Clause 11, of the apposite Recruitment and Promotion Rules, clauses whereof stand extracted hereinafter:-

(2.) The prescription in the hereinabove extracted rules, a 50%, reservation, for, inductions against substantive posts, to those workmen, who hitherto render, the prescribed period, of, qualifying service, as daily waged workmen, does fall, in tandem with the verdict, rendered by this Court, on 28.7.2010, in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others, along with connected therewith matters, hence does not acquire any stain, of, any unconstitutionality. However, the afore prescription therein, of, 50% of substantive vacancies, falling in the stream, of, Class-IV employees, being filled up, through direct recruitment, becomes, the, ire res controversia, in the extant writ petition. Even though, the afore prescription also falls within the ambit, of, the constitutional parameters, enshrined in Articles 14 and 16, of the Constitution of India, (i) thereupon, may not be amenable, for, becoming unsettled, through any judicial review, being made thereof, (ii) nonetheless, amplifying fortification to the afore becomes garnered from the afore prescription, becoming validated, through verdicts, made, upon CWP No. 10464 of 2012, and, upon CWP No. 2079 of 2009, respectively titled as Inderpal Singh vs. State, and, Jugeshwar Singh vs. State. Moreover, since, the, afore verdicts, are not demonstrated to become set aside, by the Hon'ble Apex Court, hence they acquire absolute conclusivity, and, binding force.

(3.) Since the consequences thereof are (a) upon occurrence of substantive vacancies in the afore stream, thereupon hence at the roster point assigned for each, of the afore(s) therein prescribed category(s), and, with each being meted, with, a, 50% quota, in as much as, respectively qua direct recruitees, and, qua those daily rated workmen, who complete the ordained therein period of qualifying service, rather both acquiring, a, legal right to stake, a, claim, for, induction(s) thereinto, on a substantive basis, (b) moreover, seniority also is the relevant parameter(s), for, valid induction(s) into regular service, of, those eligible daily rated workmen wheretowhom, a, 50% quota becomes prescribed. Consequently, the adherence as made to the parameter(s), of, seniority, by the respondents in the latter(s) granting, the, benefit of regularization, in service, to the apposite aspirants cannot be faulted. Moreover, upon the respondents, noticing that the writ petitioners, do not, fall within the point or notch, of, hence seniority assigned to all aspirants in their stream, and, rather other aspirants occurring, on the notch, of, seniority, (i) thereupon, the grant of benefit of regularization, by the respondents, to those workmen, who are senior to the petitioner(s), is condonable, and, also the order of demotion, as, made upon the petitioner(s) is valid. Conspicuously, also when the judgments supra are made against the respondent department, hence arrayed also as respondents, in the extant writ petition.