LAWS(JHAR)-2010-6-83

SUSHREE SWETA MUKHERJEE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On June 25, 2010
Sushree Sweta Mukherjee Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, who challenges the order dated 7.8.2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 3606 of 2002 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner was employed on daily wage basis as Office Assistant in May 1999. In March 2000, the petitioner claims that she was stopped from working, after which she filed a W.P.(S) No. 3012 of 2001 which was disposed of finally with the direction that in absence of other details, no specific orders can be passed one way or the other, but if any other person was engaged on daily wage basis after the petitioner's disengagement, the respondents should examine the issue by a reasoned order.

(2.) Pursuant to this order, respondents took a decision on 6.3.2002, enclosed as Annexure-2 to this appeal, permitting the petitioner to start working again on daily wage basis. Subsequently, the petitioner applied that she should be regularized as she had completed 240 working days in a calender year. To this, the respondent did not agree and claimed that they would be advertising the post for regular selection, in which the petitioner can also apply. Posts were advertised, vide Annexure-5 to this appeal, the petitioner did not apply and accordingly, other 36 candidates were selected and in 2004, to accommodate these 36 regularly selected candidates, service of the petitioner was dispensed with.

(3.) The petitioner challenged the non-regularization by W.P.(S) No. 3606 of 2002, and subsequently also challenged the termination of her service in the year 2004 by an amendment petition. The learned Single Judge has in substance held in his order that termination could not be faulted because daily wage employee has to make way for appointment of the regularly selected candidates. At the regular selection, non-selection of the petitioner has been justified on the ground that she has not applied, and non-regularization has also been upheld as the regular selection had already taken place.