TARA CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE contention of the petitioners is that they were though appointed under the Work Charge Rules and then looking to the need as well as hardship of the employees, a notification was issued on 21. 12. 1989 which is as under :-

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, they should have been screened as they were eligible for consideration and thereafter they should have been given appointment on the post of LDC. According to the petitioners, from the initial date of appointment, they are working as LDC inspite of the fact that they were given appointment under the Work Charge Rules only and they were given designation of Beldar. The petitioners' contention is that in view of the notification dated 21. 12. 1989, several work charge employees who were also appointed like the petitioners were given appointment after screening from time to time. The petitioners have placed on record a copy of the order dated 21. 1. 2006 which has been passed in pursuance of the order passed in SBCWP no. 2082/1994 (Mool Shanker Bissa vs. State of rajasthan and Ors.) decided on 23. 11. 2004 wherein it was found that said Mool Shanker Bissa was working as work charge employee but from the time of his appointment, he was working as Pump Driver-II. He had requisite educational qualifications and the high Court directed to consider his case for absorption as LDC with effect from 1. 4. 88 or thereafter obviously from the date when the vacancy in terms of the government circular came into force. Said Mool Shanker was given appointment on the post of LDC subject to passing of type test.