Heard the learned advocates. Both these petitions involve identical questions of law. With the consent of the learned advocates, both these matters are disposed of by this common order.
The petitioners in these petitions have claimed regular appointment as Peon under the District Collector, Panch Mahals. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were selected for the post of Peon in the year 1984 and were given temporary employment as Peon till the year 1998. However, since 1st September, 1998, the petitioners are not being engaged as Peons. The petitioners, therefore, have prayed that petitioners be given regular appointment as Peon and consequential benefits.
In answer to the notice issued by the Court, the respondents have appeared through the learned AGP Mr. P.R Abichandani. Counter-affidavit has been filed opposing the claim made by the petitioners. It is stated that the petitioners were selected for the post of Peon to man the scarcity relief works during the years 1984 to 1988. Since then, the select list prepared for appointment on scarcity relief work has been operated for filling up regular vacancies. Out of the select list of 40 persons, some 21 persons have been appointed as Peons under the District Collector, Panch Mahals, in serial order. The petitioners are placed below serial no. 21. Thus, they have not reached their turn for being regularly appointed as Peons. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, it has been assured that the future vacancies will be filled-in by appointment of the petitioners and such others from the said select list.
The petitioners have annexed the appointment order dated 15th April, 1986 made by the Resident Deputy Collector, Panch Mahals. The order categorically states that the said appointments have been made to man the scarcity relief works. Hence, it is indisputable that petitioners were selected and appointed for the scarcity relief works alone. As such, the petitioners had no right to be continued in service after the scarcity relief work was over. Nonetheless, the respondents have thought it fit to operate the said select list to fill-in the regular vacancies also. Since the said decision of the respondents is not under challenge, I shall not express any view on the wisdom of the respondents in operating the select list prepared in the year 1984-85, till the year 2000 and beyond. Further, the claim of the petitioners that they have been continuously working as Peons even after the year 1988 has been categorically denied by the respondents. No other documentary evidence has been produced by the petitioners in support of the averments made in the petition. Thus, it is a disputed fact which cannot be resolved in the present petitions preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution. Further, in view of the assurance extended in the above referred terms, no further order is required to be made on these petitions.
Hence, the petitions are dismissed. Notice issued in each of the petitions is discharged. Ad-interim relief is vacated. The registry shall maintain copy of this order in both these petitions.
[Ms. R.M Doshit, J.] Prakash*