The petitioner has filed O.A.No.1073 of 1998, seeking for a direction to the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment and absorb him regularly as Forest Watcher with consequential benefits, including disbursement of arrears of salary. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this court and was renumbered as W.P.No.33257 of 2006. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondents have filed a reply affidavit, dated 18.2.98.
2.Pending the original application, the Tribunal gave a direction to pay the petitioner his pay and allowances for the months that he had worked and also not to terminate his service. The said order was continued until further orders. Since the said order was not obeyed, the petitioner filed a contempt application in CA No.406 of 1998. In order to avoid the contempt, the respondents have complied with the interim order.
3.The case of the petitioner was that he had worked for more than 15 years and had participated in the selection process. Therefore, his services cannot be terminated without any notice or reasons.
4.In response to these averments, in paras 4 and 6 of the reply affidavit, it has been averred as follows:
"4.It is submitted that the contention of the applicant in para 6(a) & (f) that he has been stopped from service without any reason is totally false. Since the charge against the applicant was proved he has not been paid wages, and also stopped from daily wages work. In respect of two others, charges against them have not been proved, they are working in daily wages. Further it is to add that apart from the said case, the applicant is also involved in smuggling of sandalwood case in O.R.No.31/95 and in wildlife case No.1/95 and the cases are still pending in the Court. Two warrants are also pending against him and the copies are enclosed for kind information.
....
6.It is submitted that the contention of the applicant in para 6(h) to (L) that the Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated and fair play from principle of natural justice is totally false and far from truth. For the charges against the applicant the enquiry was duly conducted and proved. Since one sandalwood case and wildlife case were already pending against the applicant as submitted in para 6(e) & (f) in addition to present proved charges he himself not turned for duty. As he was not appointed by any order and the applicant is the daily paid mazdoor the question of issuing of order of terminating or dismissing from the service does not arise."
5.In case of such adhoc appointments, the Supreme Court has negatived the claim for regularisation based upon the dictum laid down in Uma Devi's case. In this regard, it is necessary to refer to the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and others Vs. Banibrata Ghosh and others reported in (2009) 3 SCC 250. In this case, the Supreme Court also has held that the decision cannot be rendered on the basis of very sympathy and the fact that a person had continued in service in view of the interim order granted cannot also have any bearing on such case. It is therefore, necessary to refer to the paragraphs 26, 28 and 31 of the said judgment, which are as follows:
"26.The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, had also relied on Stage of Karnataka v. Umadevi(3) (for reference 2006 4 SCC 1) and particularly, the observations (at SCC p.17, para 3) in that judgment to the effect that a regular process of recruitment had to be resorted to, when regular vacancies imposed at a particular point of time are to be filled up and that cannot be done in a haphazard manner or based on patronage or other considerations.
.....
28.We also do not understand as to how the Division Bench could be impressed by the fact that the interim order was not appealed against by the State Government. It is to be understood that an interim order does not decide the fate of the parties to the litigation finally, it is always subject to and merges with the final order passed in the proceedings. The non-filing of the appeal, which seems to have impressed the Division Bench, according to us, is of no consequence.
....
31.Shri Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondents, at this stage, says that we should take a compassionate view of the matter, since as a result of this judgment, the respondent would be thrown in a state of unemployment. We are afraid, we cannot show any such misplaced sympathy, which was shown by the Division Bench. We are told at the Bar that this Court had issued directions to make the payment of salaries and some payments have been made to the respondent. We direct that such payments shall not be recovered from the respondent."
6.In the light of the above legal precedents and the stand taken by the respondents, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
vvk To
1.Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai-15.
2.District Forest Officer, Tiruvannamalai.
3.Forest Range Officer, Wild life Unit, Sathanur Dam, Sathanur, Tiruvannamalai Dist.