WP/26851/2005 of J.Mogilaiah Vs The Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development on 27 December 2005

O R D E R:

The petitioner was appointed as Daily Wage Teacher, by the District Tribal WelfareOfficer, the second respondent herein, on 26.2.1991, and was posted at AshramUpper Primary School, Komatipally. Alleging that he is entitled to be appointed onregular basis, he filed Writ Petition No.28537 of 1996, and an interim order waspassed on 30.12.1996. Petitioner filed Contempt Case No.538 of 1997, alleging that the interim orders were not complied with. At thatstage, the first respondent issued orders dated 6.8.1997, appointing the petitioner onregular basis in a scale of pay, against an existing vacancy. Subsequently, his appointment was regularized, through proceedings dated 14.9.2001, with effect from6.8.1997.

Petitioner made a representation dated 14.12.2004, seeking regularization witheffect from 26.2.1991, and for payment of the consequential benefits. Alleging thatthe representation was not considered, he filed W.P.No.25228 of 2004. The writpetition was disposed of on 31.12.2004, directing the respondents therein to passappropriate orders. In obedience to the Court, the first respondent passed an orderdated 24.7.2005, rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The same is challenged in thiswrit petition.

Sri M.Kondal Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner wasappointed way back on 26.2.1991 as a Teacher on daily wage basis, and as per theScheme, prevalent at the relevant point of time, he was entitled to be regularized,with effect from the date of initial engagement. He submits that the reasons furnishedby the first respondent in rejecting the claim cannot be sustained in law.

Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, on the other hand, submits that theclaim of the petitioner is absolutely without any basis. He contends that evenaccording to the relevant Government Orders, a daily wage employee was entitled tobe regularized, with effect from the date which falls, on completion of 5 years, and not earlier thereto. He contends that the orders passed by this Court, onan earlier occasion, operate as res judicata.

In the impugned order, it was observed that under G.O.Ms.No.275, Social WelfareDepartment, dated 5.11.1986, posts in Ashram Schools, in the scheduled areas,were required to be filled by Scheduled Tribe candidates, and the petitioner, whobelongs to Backward Class community, was not eligible to be appointed on dailywage basis, at all. That, however, is besides the issue, in the present context. Aperusal of the relief claimed by the petitioner in W.P.No.28537 of 1996, disclosesthat he wanted the respondents herein, to regularize his service, with effect from25.2.1996, on which date he has completed 5 years of uninterrupted service. Aninterim order was passed therein, and the petitioner filed contempt case, allegingnon-implementation thereof. It was at that stage that the first respondent passedorder dated 6.8.1997, appointing the petitioner as a teacher, on regular basis. Thesame was taken note of, and the writ petition was closed on 3.11.1999.

In the teeth of the prayer in W.P.No.28537 of 1996, it was not open to the petitioner

Conclusion

to claim regularization from any point of time, before the completion of 5 years fromthe date of initial engagement. At any rate, if he had any grievance in this regard, heought to have pointed out the same, when W.P.No.28537 of 1996 was disposed of.The order passed therein, operates as res judicata.

The petitioner woke up after 5 years, and made a speculative representation,claiming regularization with effect from 26.2.1991, as well as consequentialmonetary benefits. To say the least, the claim of the petitioner is preposterous, andhe has indulged in vexatious litigation. Even now, he is not able to show any basisfor his claim. The only object for the petitioner appears to be to derive more andmore benefits, at any cost. This Court does not approve the conduct of the petitioner.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, with costs of Rs.2,000/- (two thousand),payable to the first respondent.

___________________________

(L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J)

Dt.27[th] December 2005Note: L.R.copies be marked.(B/o)

PAN