ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE,J. - (1.) The petitioner claims absorption on the strength of his past service rendered to the State as 'Tahasil Mohourrior'. Tahasil Mohourriors are seasonal appointees. They were engaged for four months a year, principally for collection of land revenue. In 1991, the State decided to regularize them in deference to a Single Bench decision of this Court. The State framed a scheme. Accordingly, as per the provisions of the said scheme, the petitioner was considered and ultimately was rejected on the ground that there was no available evidence to show that the petitioner would squarely come within the zone of consideration under the provisions of the scheme. In the process, the Authority disputed the certificate issued by the JLRO, appearing at page 38 of the petition.
(2.) The petitioner approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the order of the Authority rejecting the prayer for regularization. Hence, this petition before us.
(3.) As observed herein before, Tahasil Mohourriors were seasonal appointees and engaged purely on casual basis. The concept of regularization is unknown in law; it would rather offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge of this Court asked the State to consider their prayer for regularization. We do not wish to make any comment on the same. The State in deference to the Court's desire framed the scheme and considered all similarly circumstanced candidates on case to case basis.;