RAJASTHAN POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS Vs. RAJASTHAN BOARD FOR PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although manyfold prayers have been made in the writ petition, on account of the developments which have taken place during the pendency of the writ petition, the only question which now remains to be determined by this Court, is as to whether the petitioner has a right to be considered for regularisation of his service on the post of Junior Engineer as has been done in case of similarly situated persons.

(2.) Initially the petition was filed by the association as well as Shri H.R. Kasana, Shri Khem Chand Gupta and Shri Om Prakash Gupta. However, on the basis of the application filed on behalf of the petitioners on 16.9.92 this Court directed deletion of names of Shri Khem Chand Gupta and Shri Om Prakash Gupta from the array of petitioners.

(3.) The petitioner H.R. Kasana was appointed in the service of the Rajasthan Board for Prevention and Control of Pollution (for short the respondent Board) in -pursuance of order dated 16.11.89 passed by the Principal Secretary of the Board. He was initially appointed for a period of two months on the post of Junior Engineer on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1876/-. This appointment of the petitioner Shri Kasana was continued on the basis of the orders/resolution passed by the respondent Board from time to time. On 27.4.91 the respondent Board issued an advertisement (Exhibit-2) inviting applications for making appointments on the post of Junior Engineer. Petitioner and large number of other persons holding the post of Junior Engineer made representation to the Board and requested that their services be regularised without subjecting them to any fresh competition. When the respondent Board did not yield to the request of the petitioner and other persons, this writ petition was filed with a prayer that the advertisement issued by the Board be quashed and the respondent Board be directed to undertake the exercise for regularisation of service of the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner is that the Board has constantly followed the practice of regularising the service of adhoc appointees and there was no reason for making a departure from this existing practice so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned. Specific reference has been made to the case of Shri Ram Prakash Verma, who too was initially appointed on adhoc basis and his services were regularised without any fresh selection. The petitioner No. 1 has pleaded that on the basis of the existing practice of the Board he has a right to be regularised in service and there is no reason for subjecting him to a fresh recruitment where he is required to face competition with other open market candidates. The respondent Board has contested the claim made by the petitioner by asserting that it has resorted to the mode of recruitment and the petitioner cannot make any grievance against the Board merely because it has adopted the mode of selection by inviting applications from open market.