JAGDISH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned writ Court in CWP (T) No. 10735 of 2008 decided on 09.04.2012 whereby the claim of the appellant for regularization of his services was dismissed.

(2.) THE appellant had, initially, approached the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application which on closure of the Tribunal came to be transferred to this Court and was registered CWP(T) No. 10735 of 2008. In the Original Application, it was contended that the appellant had been appointed as a driver in the Home Guards on 7th April, 1997 and after having worked continuously and uninterruptedly for the last more than 7 years, his services ought to have been regularized. The appellant had further stated that he had been appointed pursuant to letter dated 21.02.1997 whereby he was called for interview and driving test which he qualified and consequently came to be appointed vide letter dated 7th April, 1997. It was further alleged that the respondents had appointed three persons namely Anil Kumar, Raj Kumar and Kuldip Kumar on regular basis while the appellant had been discriminated against by not appointing him on regular basis.

(3.) THE appellant filed rejoinder wherein he conceded that he had not been appointed in terms of the Act and Rules and at no point of time had served as a member of the Home Guards, but has served as a driver on daily wage basis. It was alleged that the appellant was neither required to serve the respondents organization for a period of three years or any extended period nor in the reserved force. It is apt to reproduce Para -5 of the rejoinder which reads thus: -