RAJENDRA PASWAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It appears that petitioner had earlier come to this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 5938 of 2009 in which he was directed to file representation before the concerned authority. Accordingly, petitioner filed representation before the Dy. Director, Secondary Education, claiming for equal treatment like Rabindra Kumar Tiwari, Randhir Kumar and other employees. The Director, Secondary Education, vide order dated 6.3.2012, as contained in Annexure-13, has rejected the representation of the petitioner by a speaking order. He found that those two persons had moved this Court separately and their writ petition was allowed, against which L.P.A. was filed by the State Government, but ultimately they had to be restored. The Director, Secondary Education, examined the cases of eight employees including the petitioner. So far the cases of six employees are concerned, he found that process of selection was taken up in their appointment by holding interview and their cases were distinguishable from the case of the petitioner, in whose case no selection process was held and he was appointed on daily wages by the Regional Deputy Director straightaway. After his appointment on daily wages, petitioner continued in service illegally. Hence, he found that petitioner was not entitled for payment.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has continued his service for quite a long and he was treated as a regular employee by grant of pay scale etc.

(3.) This Court in the case of Ravindra Pandey vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 2010 4 PLJR 1073 has held that any amount of treatment by any authority to an appointee like a regular employee cannot condone illegality in his initial appointment. In terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Uma Devi & Ors., 2006 2 PLJR(SC) 363 case of the petitioner falls in the category of illegal appointment. The only exception laid down by the Apex Court is in respect of employees who have already been regularized. This Court has held in Rabindra Pandey that to come under the said exception, there must be a specific conscious decision of the competent authority with regard to regularization. On the basis of collateral evidence regularization cannot be assumed for the purpose. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any error in the order of the Director, Secondary Education and also finds no merit in the writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.