Full Text
CM No.7050/2011 February 20, 2013 DURGESH KUMAR NAYAK ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Adv.
Through: Dr.Rajeshwar Rao, Adv.
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner who was admittedly appointed only as an adhoc employee seeks the application of doctrine of “last come first go”. Originally in the writ petition, various reliefs were claimed including of regularization, but since in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1, adhoc employees cannot be regularized, it could not be disputed on behalf of the petitioner that the 2013:DHC:947 petitioner who was not appointed against a specific permanent post cannot get regularization because, the ratio of Umadevi & Ors. (supra) will clearly come into play.
2. Learned Single Judge of this Court noted all these detailed aspects in the order dated 1.6.2011, and therefore, today the issue is limited to application of the doctrine of “last come first go”.
3. Counsel for the petitioner argues the application of doctrine of “last come first go” inasmuch as with respect to two persons, one Sh. Mangal Ram as stated in ground (e) of the petition and one Sh. Rajesh Kumar given at serial No. 19 in a list dated 4.4.2011 filed as Annexure E to the counter affidavit are still said to be working with the respondent.
4. Counsel appearing for the respondent, on instructions, however states that neither Sh. Rajesh Kumar nor Sh. Mangal Ram are on the roll of service of respondent as on date, and in fact, Sh. Rajesh Kumar is now an employee of a private contractor who is providing services to the respondent. Therefore it is clear that neither Sh. Mangal Ram nor Sh. Rajesh Kumar are the employees of the respondent, and therefore, since these persons are not in service of the respondent the issue of applicability of doctrine of “last come first go” will have no application because there are no persons who have been appointed later than the petitioner and who continue to be in service with the respondent as adhoc employees.
5. The writ petition and all pending applications are accordingly dismissed in view of the aforesaid observations.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J FEBRUARY 20, 2013 ak