- (1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 12.8.2005 (P-10) passed by the Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Hisar-respondent No. 3, rejecting the claim of the petitioners for appointment on the regular post of Swasthya Sahayaks. A further prayer for issuance of a direction to the respondents to absorb the petitioners in service as Swasthya Sahayaks against the regular vacancies as per the order dated 14.1.1994 (Annexure P.2) passed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 12071 of 1993 (P-2) has been sought with a further direction to restrain the respondents from filling up the regular vacancies from fresh candidates.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed on daily wage basis as Swasthya Sahayaks in the office of the District Malaria Officer, Dabra Chowk, Hisar respondent No. 4 during the years 1984 to 1989 (P-1). When their services were not regularised, the petitioners filed C.W.P. No. 12071 of 1993 for regularisation of their services. The aforementioned writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 14.1.1994 in view of the statement made by the learned State counsel that in the eventuality of any regular vacancy falling vacant the case of the petitioners for regularisation against the said vacancy shall be considered in accordance with law. It is claimed that 9 Class-IV regular vacancies were lying vacant, inasmuch as, against 36 sanctioned posts only 27 incumbents i.e., Field Workers were working with the respondents. Therefore, the petitioners sent a legal notice dated 20.7.2005 (Annexure P-9) to the respondents for regularising their services as per order dated 14.1.1994 passed in C.W.P. No. 12071 of 1993. The Civil Surgeon, Hisar- respondent No. 3 while considering the legal notice has rejected the claim of the petitioners on 12.8.2005 (P-10) on the ground that the appointments as Swasthya Sahayaks are made on seasonal basis through employment exchange in accordance with the seniority list of Swasthya Sahayaks, which has been prepared under the rules and the services of the petitioners could not be regularised as the work is seasonal. It has been specifically denied that any regular appointment has been made.
(3.) It is, thus, evident that neither any regular vacancy is available with the respondents nor any regular appointment has been made. Further, the petitioners have failed to cite any example where any person junior to the petitioners, as per seniority list prepared by the respondents, has been given regular appointment. The work of the post in question is seasonal. Therefore, the relief claimed by the petitioners could not be granted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi & others, 2006 4 JT 420, has held that persons who are appointed on daily wage basis could always be relieved of their duties and such persons cannot claim regularisation.;