Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) THERE are altogether four writ petitions. The subject matter of challenge in all the four writ petitions is regularisation of the service of the respective Petitioners. In W.P. No. 7666 (W) of 2002 the appropriate authority considered the representation in compliance with the earlier order of the Court in an erstwhile writ petition but rejected the plea. In W.P. No. 7642 (W) of 2002 and in W.P. No. 8709 (W) of 2002 no erstwhile writ was made but due to failure to consider the case, an appeal was made before an appropriate authority for due consideration which is yet pending. So far as W.P. No. 8121 (W) of 2002 is concerned the Petitioners' case has not been considered at all. Excepting first one in these matters no other writ petitions were previously made. Therefore, excepting the technicalities no factual difference is there in between the first matter and the rest of the three matters. Therefore, all are taken up for analogous hearing.
(2.) GROUNDS of the rejection by the Governmental authority in the first matter will be reflected from the order as follows: (1) The post of Sahayak created vide G.O. No. 4406/P/N/III2E -49/98 dt. 04.12.98 but the Petitioner claimed that he was temporarily engaged and said to be appointed to the post of Sahayak by the Pradhan Chitmu Gram Panchayat on 16.10.98 on casual worker basis. (2) No authentic document of appointment letter produced by any corner. (3) Appointee was not paid any wages/remuneration out of the scheme fund as per provision laid in terms of G.O. No. 4406/PN/dt. 04.12.98 vide para. (d). (4) It is found quite contradictory regarding the post. Such as the Petitioner mentioned in his petition for the post of Sahayak, in writ petition for the post of G.P. Karmee and in judgment of Hon'ble High Court for the post of Karmachari of Gram Panchayat. Respondents' stand in all the four matters are more or less uniform, The respective Petitioners' contention is that they have worked in the office of different Gram Panchayats casually more than 240 days, therefore, they are entitled for regularisation of service. It has been pointed out by the respective Respondents that when the original appointment is irregular such appointment cannot be regularised subsequently. According to them, there is a difference in between the posts of 'Gram Panchayat Karmee' and 'Sahayak'. The first one is Group -D wherein the second one is Group -C post. It appears from each and every case that no formal appointment was given by the respective panchayats but they have resolved in a meeting and certified that the respective Petitioners were working as 'Gram Panchayat Karmee' and to meet the exigencies their services were required as 'Sahayak'.
(3.) TAKING the advantage of such situation, now, the respective Petitioners are insisting regularisation of their respective services in the post of 'Sahayak' which is different from 'Gram Panchayat Karmee'. This is nothing but back -door appointments. According to the Petitioners, two circulars were issued by the state authorities being dated September 13, 2000 and November 10, 2000 which are governing the field of regularisation of service who were irregularly appointed earlier. At no point of time it is the case of the Petitioners that they are regularly appointed. But when the Government has taken a policy of regularisation of the service of themselves who were irregularly appointed but worked for more than 240 days, the question of irregular or backdoor appointment cannot sustain.;