JAI MUNI PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was engaged on daily wages on 15.2.1984. A panel was prepared in the year 1984 pursuant to the circular of the government issued in the year 1980 for preparation of panel for appointment on class IV posts in the district, Annexure -2. The petitioner 'sname as casual worker was at serial no. 41 in the said panel prepared by the District Magistrate, Rohtas. Although, the petitioner was engaged on daily wages on 15.2.84 and he was working since then, yet he was not regularly appointed, and as such, the petitioner has come before this Court for issue of direction for regularisation of his services. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the writ petition the respondents are not taking work from him. However, it has been disclosed that the persons below the petitioner in the panel have already been offered regular appointment.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents where in the fact that the petitioner 'sname was in the panel prepared in 1984 and he was working on daily wages has not been denied. But their stand is that in the panel prepared in 1995 the name of the petitioner was not mentioned and, as such, he was not offered permanent employment. In reply to the counter affidavit it has been stated that vacancy is still existing and for the purpose the learned counsel drew my attention to Annexure -7 of reply to the counter affidavit.

(3.) IN the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the District Magistrate to make an inquiry as to why his name was not included in the panel prepared in 1995 and also whether the persons below the petitioner in the panel were offered permanent employment and if all these things are found correct then consider the claim of petitioner for regular employment without any delay.