DINA NATH MONDAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed for seeking following relief:

(2.) IN substance, it is admitted case to the parties that the petitioners had worked as casual labourers. According to the respondents they have not discharged their work regularly and their services were taken whenever they were required to work. But according to the petitioners, they have worked regularly under the respondents. A panel of selected candidates was prepared and the names of the petitioners found place in that panel which was later on cancelled. The parties moved to the Patna High Court for inclusion of the names in panel of 1993 -94 for the appointment of the 4th Grade post and the petition was dismissed with a direction to examine the petitioners' claim. Thereafter, a fresh notification in the year 1998 was issued inviting for appointment on the 4th Grade post and the petitioners applied for the same. Thereafter, in the year 2002 again a fresh notification was issued for appointment on the vacant post of Class -IV employees for which again the petitioners applied. The respondents instead of preparing the select list, they again advertised a fresh advertisement for the same post in the year 2005. It is further alleged that a number of posts are vacant in the District Pakur for Ciass -IV employees.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The perusal of the petition, the petitioners' claim is based on two grounds, firstly, they had worked as a casual labourers for more than 20 years and as such their services should be regularized and they should be appointed as Class -IV employees and secondly they have taken a plea that the posts of Class -IV employees are vacant in the district and they have applied for the same post and they should have appointed on the said Class -IV post, whereas the question regularizing the services of the petitioners or to appoint them for Class -IV post on the basis that they had worked more than 20 years in the department is not sustainable because it is admitted case of the petitioners that they had continuously worked as casual labourers in the Department though it is has been disputed by the respondents.