NARAYAN DAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN appointment was given to the petitioner as Draftsman/Surveyor with the Municipal Board, Sadri on 13.4.1994. The Government of Rajasthan under a letter dated 22.1.1998, instructed all the Chief Executive Officers, Commissioners and Executive Officers of Municipal Corporations/Councils and Municipal Board in the State of Rajasthan to regularise services of the Junior Engineers conducting screening, who have worked for two years upto 30.11.1997. The petitioner though was holding the post of Draftsman, but having the qualification required for appointment as Junior Engineer was also screened. However, due to non -availability of a sanctioned post with Municipal Board, Sadri, appointment as Junior Engineer was not accorded to him. The Executive Officer of the Municipal Board concerned under a communication dated 13.2.1998 informed the Director, Local Self Government, Jaipur that the petitioner while remaining on the post of Surveyor was discharging the duties of Junior Engineer. A communication dated 20.7.2010, now is issued by the Director, Local Self Government to all the Chief Executive Officers, Commissioners and Executive Officers of Municipal Corporations/Councils and Municipal Board for not taking work relating to the post of Junior Engineer from the persons appointed as Draftsman. It is also made clear in the letter aforesaid that the person appointed as Draftsman but utilised as Junior Engineer be posted to their original post i.e. Draftsman. Being aggrieved by the same this petition for writ is preferred.

(2.) IT is well settled that the person applying for a mandamus is first required to call upon the authority concerned to discharge its legal obligation and to show that it has either refused or neglected to carry out within a reasonable time before applying to a court.

(3.) IN the case in hand, the claim of the petitioner is for regularisation as Junior Engineer and further not to take away the work of the post aforesaid from him. Before approaching this Court, seeking a mandate in the terms aforesaid no demand is made by the petitioner. There is no such urgency that may warrant waiver of the condition precedent for seeking mandamus, as such, I am not inclined to entertain this petition for writ at this stage. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. The petitioner is required to make demand from the respondents and if they reject the same or do not take any action for a substantial time, it shall be open for the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy.