Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mr. K.R. Sudhakar, was initially appointed as a driver under G.O.Ms.No.209 dated 23.11.2001, a government order issued pursuant to the Supreme Court's directions in C.A.No.810 of 1998. The Supreme Court had directed the State Government to modify its scheme and accommodate retrenched employees of the Census Department in Group‑IV services. The petitioner was not a party to those proceedings but obtained appointment by virtue of the general order. In 2018, he filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash an order dated 09.10.2017 by the District Collector, which rejected his request to be appointed as a Junior Assistant under Clause 4(3) of G.O.Ms.No.43, P & AR Department, dated 15.02.1994, and the benefit given in G.O.Ms.No.246, P & AR (P) Department, dated 29.08.2003, claiming parity with similarly placed candidates. The petitioner argued that other retrenched employees had been accommodated as Junior Assistants and that he should receive the same treatment. The respondents contended that the petitioner was appointed as a driver under a special rehabilitation scheme for retrenched census employees, not in a regular temporary vacancy. They submitted that G.O.Ms.No.43 and G.O.Ms.No.246 were designed to regularize the services of employees who had already been working in temporary regular vacancies, a class to which the petitioner did not belong. The High Court examined the nature of the petitioner's appointment and the scope of the cited government orders. It found that the petitioner entered service as a driver under a compassionate scheme for retrenched employees, not through any regular recruitment process. G.O.Ms.No.43 expressly applies only to persons who had worked in regular temporary vacancies, and there was no evidence that the petitioner ever held such a position. The Court further observed that the petitioner failed to produce any material to show that other similarly placed individuals had been appointed as Junior Assistants under the same circumstances. Relying on these facts, the Court concluded that the petitioner could not claim the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.43 or G.O.Ms.No.246, nor could he claim parity with others without establishing their appointment to the post of Junior Assistant. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment and Regularization - Right to appointment to a different post under subsequent government orders - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The petitioner, appointed as a driver under G.O.Ms.No.209 dated 23.11.2001 pursuant to Supreme Court directions for retrenched census employees, sought appointment as Junior Assistant under G.O.Ms.No.43 and G.O.Ms.No.246. Held, G.O.Ms.No.43 applies only to employees who worked in regular temporary vacancies, not to persons appointed under a special rehabilitation scheme; the petitioner's appointment was not in a regular temporary vacancy but under a scheme for retrenched employees, so he could not claim the benefit of these government orders. (Paras 5-7) B) Service Law - Parity in Employment - Parity with similarly placed candidates - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The petitioner claimed that similarly placed candidates were appointed as Junior Assistant, but adduced no evidence to support this. Held, in the absence of material showing that such persons were appointed as Junior Assistant under identical circumstances, the claim of parity must fail. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Junior Assistant as per Clause 4(3) of G.O.Ms.No.43 dated 15.02.1994 and benefit of G.O.Ms.No.246 dated 29.08.2003, on par with similarly placed candidates.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. The court held that the petitioner failed to establish entitlement to appointment as Junior Assistant under the cited government orders. No costs.
Law Points
- appointment under special scheme for retrenched employees does not create parity with employees appointed under different schemes
- benefit of regularization under G.O.Ms.No.43 and G.O.Ms.No.246 limited to temporary employees who worked in regular vacancies
- claim for appointment to a different post must be based on specific service conditions at time of appointment
