CHAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT Civil Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is pleaded that respondent department invited applications from the desirous candidates having a particular qualification for providing them one year training of gardener. It is further pleaded that petitioner applied for the training of gardener and after conducting the interview he was selected for the same post vide selection letter dated 1.8.1997. It is further pleaded that in the year 1998 petitioner successfully completed the training of gardener. It is further pleaded that petitioner was engaged by the respondent department as gardener in the year 1999 but work for the post of Clerk was obtained from the petitioner. It is further pleaded that eleven years have past but respondents have not regularized the service of the petitioner despite many representations for regularization. It is further pleaded that direction be issued to the respondents for regularization/work charge the services of the petitioner in the capacity of gardener. It is further pleaded that respondents be directed to pay wages of Clerk/gardener to the petitioner from 1999. It is further pleaded that respondents be directed to pay the arrears of salary with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Prayer for acceptance of writ petition sought.

(2.) PER contra reply filed on behalf of the respondents pleaded therein that one year vocational gardener training was conducted under the Dr. Y.S. Parmer University and the resident commissioner being the single line administrator selected the petitioner along with others for the said training. It is further pleaded that main purpose to conduct the training was to make the unemployed youth self reliant. It is further pleaded that training was imparted for self employment purpose. It is further pleaded that petitioner has no legitimate right to claim the government service on the basis of training imparted and the respondent department is not bound to provide government job. It is further pleaded that petitioner was initially engaged during the month of June 1999 for seasonal work at Progeny -cum -Demonstration Orchard at Killar as well as some time in the office of Subject Matter Specialist Pangi at Killar subject to availability of work and petitioner remained on work till 2004. It is further pleaded that petitioner has not completed required 160 days in the year 1999, 2003 and 2004. It is further pleaded that petitioner is not eligible for work charge status as the petitioner has not worked continuously with respondent department. It is further pleaded that petitioner was engaged as daily paid labourer at Progeny -cum -Demonstration Orchard Killar and when the work was not available at Progeny -cum -Demonstration Orchard the petitioner thereafter worked in the office of Subject Matter Specialist Pangi as beldar for cleaning the office and to distribute the official letters etc. It is further pleaded that petitioner was engaged at Progeny -cum -Demonstration Orchard Killar as beldar for seasonal work and is not entitled for any relief. It is further pleaded that wages already stood paid to the petitioner. It is further pleaded that petitioner was not engaged as Clerk and petitioner is not eligible for the wages of Clerk. Prayer for dismissal of writ petition sought. Petitioner filed rejoinder and re -asserted the allegation pleaded in the civil writ petition.

(3.) FOLLOWING points arise for determination in the present writ petition: