Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) NO one appears for the petitioner. Petitioner seeks permanent absorption/regularization in service stating that he was engaged initially on the post of Computer Operator -cum -Typist vide office order dated 8.2.2003, Annexure -2, issued by the Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand.
(2.) PETITIONER contends that he has been working since long under the respondent against a sanctioned post. Lastly his service contract was extended till 31.3.2014. According to the petitioner, in terms of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi reported in : 2006(4) SCC 1 [: 2006(2) JLJR (SC) 282], some decision was also taken by the Cabinet Secretariat vide resolution dated 19.7.2009 in the matter of regularization of persons working on contractual basis. Petitioner's cases stands on similar footing. Petitioner has also relied upon the judgment rendered by learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of Viveka Nand v. the State of Jharkhand and Ore. in W.P.(S) No. 451 of 2010 dated 19.5.2010, Annexure -4, which related to confirmation of the services of the said petitioner on the post of Typist -cum -Computer Operator in the District Rural Development Authority, Koderma where he was engaged since 1997. The said writ petition was allowed with a direction to regularize the said petitioner as it appeared that similarly situated 7 other persons, who had been appointed in the DRDA, were regularized in service while the said petitioner was singled out. Petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ramesh Mahto v. The State of Jharkhand and Ore. in W.P.(S) No. 5924 of 2003 : Reported in : 2012(4) JLJR 126 dated 31.7.2012, Annexure -7 whereunder the respondent -State were directed to frame Regularization Scheme/Rule within stipulated period in terms of the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para -53 in the case of Uma Devi (supra). On these grounds, petitioner claims to be entitled for absorption/regularization in the said office. According to the respondents, who have filed their counter affidavit, appointment letter of the petitioner itself indicates that it will not create any right in favour of the petitioner for appointment/regularization as it was a contractual engagement. It is stated in the affidavit filed on 1.5.2014 that Personnel Department is competent to frame Rules/Statutory Scheme for the purposes of regularization in view of the direction passed in Uma Devi's case. Such Departments are not impleaded as party. Therefore, petitioner cannot claim for regularization as a matter of right.
(3.) IT appears from the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent that thereafter Personnel Department has framed Regularization Rules, 2015 notified on 13.2.2015 in terms of the direction passed in Uma Devi's case where cases of temporary/daily wages employee, who are in continuous engagement for 10 years on the cut -off date 10.4.2006, were eligible for consideration subject to fulfillment of other conditions as well relating to eligibility criteria and their engagement against the sanctioned vacant post. Having considered the aforesaid facts pleaded and submissions of the parties, it appears that petitioner is seeking regularization, which is permissible only on the basis of such scheme/regularization framed by the employer. Recruitment Rules, which has been framed by the Government of Jharkhand in 2015, stipulate certain conditions of eligibility, which are required to be satisfied whereafter such cases would be considered by the duly constituted committee. In the present case, petitioner was on contractual engagement only since February, 2003 and could not have completed 10 years for such consideration by the cut -off date 10.4.2006 prescribed under the 2015 Rules. Reliance of the petitioner upon decision at Annexure -4 in the case of Viveka Nand (supra) would not improve his case in view of the fact that services of certain similarly situated persons, whose engagements were in 1997, were regularized while he was singled out and in such circumstances direction was issued in the case of said petitioner by the learned Single Judge to absorb him in service. In such circumstances, no relief can be granted in the present writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.;