Muneshwar Paswan v. State Of Bihar

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

2. Admittedly, the petitioners are seasonal worker and whenever the authority feels their requirement, they are hired and when the work is completed, they are let off.

3. This process of temporary employment is going on for years together.

4. Petitioners approached this Court for the regularisation in service in C.W.J.C No. 298 of 2012 and this Court passed the order to take decision on regularisation in terms of judgment reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 (Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi). In pursuance thereof, the Executive Engineer considered case of petitioners and approved their regularisation, vide Memo no. 302 dated 27.03.2012, but just after two months, the Executive Engineer, (same officer) has passed an another order where it has been recorded that services of the petitioner are being taken for temporary period during the rainy reason and after close of work, they are paid their wages accordingly, clearly shows they are seasonal worker, in terms of Uma Devi case (supra) they do not satisfy the condition mentioned for regularization as mentioned in paragraph-53 of the aforesaid judgment.

5. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the Executive Engineer in earlier recommendation found they are required for repairing work during the rainy season, as strength of regular employee has been reduced and recommended for their regularisation.

6. The counsel for the petitioner submits that after receiving a letter from the Chief Engineer, the Executive Engineer changed his opinion, reviewed his own order, and passed a different order adverse to the petitioner.

7. So far review of order is concerned, there is no bar to the Executive Authority to give relook to earlier executive decision but when the authority holds a judicial or quasi-judicial power, he will have authority to review his order provided statute specifically or impliedly authorised him. As has specifically been mentioned, the petitioners are seasonal employees and they do not fulfill requisite qualification in terms of Uma Devi case (supra), admittedly the appointments of the petitioners have not been made after due advertisement of vacancy, not after proper interview i.e without following proper selection process, their entry into service cannot be treated to be legal.

8. This Court, in Ram Sevak Yadav v. State of Bihar, 2011 (1) PLJR 964 has held that if a person who enters into the service from back door, does not have any right to continue in the post and he should be expelled from the post through the same door.

9. As this matter is of regularisation in service, this Court does not find any merit in the present case and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.