Vineet Saran, J.@mdashSince in these writ petitions common questions of law and fact arise, they are being decided by a common judgment.
2. These writ petitions have been filed with a prayer for direction to the Respondents to get the services of the Petitioners regularized as class IV employee and appoint them on the post of peon. A further direction has been prayed for payment of their salary.
3. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23236 of 1997, Usman Khan v. Sales Tax Officer and othersis made the leading case and I shall deal with the facts of this petition.
4. According to the Petitioner, he had been working as palleydar at Vijay Nagar Check-post of the Sales Tax Office in district Ghaziabad since 1978 and his duty was to physically verify the vehicles at the Check-post. It has been stated that the Petitioner was engaged till December, 1996 and was paid his salary but thereafter the same has been stopped. Applications had been invited for appointment of 34 peons (class IV posts) for working at the Check-post for which interviews had been held on 23.7.1997. Learned Counsel has accepted that the Petitioner did appear for the interview but was not declared as a successful candidate and hence appointment was not given to him.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not been able to produce any document to show that the Petitioner was ever appointed on daily wages or that he had even worked regularly since the year 1978 as has been stated in the writ petition. The only annexure filed with the writ petition is a copy of the representation made on his behalf. It has nowhere been stated in the writ petition as to what salary or wages were being paid to the Petitioner from the year 1978, till the date he alleges to have worked. Only vague averments have been made that he has worked for 18 years and his salary has been stopped from December, 1996. In the absence of any categorical averment made or proof given with regard to his employment/engagement or even regarding specific amount of salary or wages which were being paid to the Petitioner, the same cannot be relied upon.
6. In the counter-affidavit the Respondents have stated that at the check-post certain persons were engaged from time to time for loading and unloading the goods as and when requirement occurred, which engagement was on contract basis. Subsequently regular class IV employees were employed for such purposes after proper selection. It has also been stated that the Petitioner was never appointed on daily wages and there was no post by the name of palleydar. Sri Abhinav Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that merely by engaging some labourers, such as the Petitioner, on contract basis as and when the requirement was there, it would not entitle the Petitioner for being taken in regular service without following the prescribed procedure. It was further submitted that the Petitioner was called for interview which was held on 23.7.1997 for the selection of peon (class IV post) but was not found suitable and thus no such appointment could be given. It has been urged that the Apex Court has in
The plea that the Court should have a "human approach" and should not disturb a person who has already been working on this post for more than a decade also cannot be accepted as the Courts are hardly swayed by emotional appeals. In dispensing justice to the litigating parties, the Courts not only go into the merits of the respective cases, they also try to balance the equities so as to do complete justice between them. Thus, the Courts always maintain a human approach. In the instant case also, this approach has not been departed from. We are fully conscious that the Respondent had worked on the post in question for quite a long time but it was only in ad hoc capacity. We are equally conscious that a selected candidate who also possesses necessary educational qualification is available. In this situation, if the Respondent is allowed to continue on this post merely on the basis of his concept of "human approach", it would be at the cost of a duly selected candidate who would be deprived of employment for which he had striven and had ultimately cleared the selection. In fact, it is the "human approach" which requires us to prefer the selected candidate over a person who does not possess even the requisite qualification....
7. In the present case also, candidates have been appointed on class IV posts after due selection for which the Petitioner was also admittedly given a chance to compete.
8. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties as well as from a perusal of the record, I am of the view that the Petitioner has not been able to establish that he was ever engaged on daily or regular basis or appointed on any post by the Respondents. In fact, the Petitioner has not even stated as to what wages or salary he was getting during the period when he alleges to have worked. Admittedly, the Petitioner appeared in the interview for regular selection on the post of class IV employees but was declared unsuccessful. Even otherwise, the Petitioner has not been able to show that he has any legal right for regularization in service or appointment as peon. Thus, in the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the prayer for regularization of service of the Petitioner or his appointment on class IV post cannot be granted.
9. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed being devoid of merit.
10. The other connected writ petitions are also on the same facts and cause of action. Accordingly, the same are also dismissed.
