SANT PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants before us were engaged by the Collectorate, Saran and soon thereafter they were disengaged. On the basis of representation made by them, the Commissioner of the Division directed their re -engagement for a period of one year. They were re -engaged as daily wage Muharrirs. Before expiry of one year from the date of their engagement, they filed a service case. While the service case was pending disposal, an order dated 3rd June 1991 was passed and by virtue thereof, the order of the Commissioner was cancelled. This affected re -engagement of the petitioners as daily wage Muharrirs. Later on the service case was dismissed by order dated 18th June 1991. Challenging the orders dated 3rd June 1991 and 19th June 1991, the appellants preferred a writ petition challenging principally those two orders and also seeking their regularization in the permanent establishment.

(2.) THE writ Court refused to interfere with these two orders dated 3rd June 1991 and 19th June 1991. By mistake, the Writ Court in its order recorded the order dated 19th June 1991, as the order dated 9th June 1991. From the judgment and order under appeal, it would be crystal clear that no argument was advanced to highlight the alleged illegality of these two orders dated 3rd June 1991 and 19th June 1991. Instead, despite being not entitled to be engaged as daily wage Muharrirs in view of the said orders dated 3rd June 1991 and 19th June 1991, an impression was given to the Court as if the appellants are still continuing to work. It was contended that inasmuch as they were working in the temporary establishment, in view of Rule 161 of the Board's Miscellaneous Rules, they have a preferential right to be considered for being engaged in the permanent establishment. Since it was not the case in the writ petition, for that could not be the case, that any junior to the appellants had been regularized in the permanent establishment before them, the Court observed in relation to such submission on behalf of the appellants that they must wait for their turn to come. Lastly it was contended that as per the decisions of the Government if persons like the appellants engaged to work in the temporary establishment of the Government continues to remain engaged without a break for long period of time, such temporary establishment should be made a part of the permanent establishment. In relation to such submission, the Court directed the appellant to make a representation before the Collector, Saran with a further direction upon the Collector, Saran to consider the same in accordance with law and to take steps preferably within one month from the date of filing such representation.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants did not utter a single word to contend that the orders dated 3rd June 1991 and 19th June 1991 which were challenged in the writ petition were erroneous either in law or on facts. In fact, no submission to that effect has been advanced before us. Instead it was urged by referring to Annexure -3 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the appellants on 21st July 2008 that out of some of the appellants, a few have been taken in the regular establishment and while doing so, seniority has not been taken note of. It was urged that in such circumstances, this Court should direct absorption of the remaining appellants.