Karnataka High Court
Puneeth Kumar. M. R vs The All India Institute Of Speech And ... on 5 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36374-DB
WP No. 43464 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT PETITION NO. 43464 OF 2019 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
1. PUNEETH KUMAR M.R.
S/O. RAMACHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
WAS WORK AS ELECTRONIC ENGINEER,
ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF SPEECH AND HEARING,
MANASAGANGOTHRI,
MYSORE-570 006,
R/O. NO. 2112,
DHANVANTHRI ROAD,
DEVARAJA MOHALLA,
Digitally signed by MYSORE-570 001.
HARIKRISHNA V
Location: HIGH 2. K. RAMU
COURT OF
KARNATAKA S/O. KRISHNE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
WAS WORK AS AUDIO VISUAL TECHNICIAN,
ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF SPEECH AND HEARING,
MANASAGANGOTHRI,
MYSORE-570 006,
C/O. SUJAY KUMAR. B.A.,
3 287, GROUP-3, LIG,
KHB COLONY, HOOTAGALLI,
MYSORE-570 018.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RANGANATHA S JOIS, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36374-DB
WP No. 43464 of 2019
AND:
1. THE ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF SPEECH
AND HEARING
"NAIMISHAM" CAMPUS,
MANASAGANGOTHRI,
MYSORE-570 006,
REP. BY ITS
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.
2. THE UNION OF INDIA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE,
NEW DELHI-110 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN.M, CGC FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INIDA PRAYING TO-CALL
FOR THE RECORDS REGARDING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT
15.11.2018 MADE IN O.A.NO.170/282-286/2018 OF THE
HON'BLE CAT VIDE ANNEXURE-A PERUSE AND QUASH THE
SAID ORDER AS ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO LAW AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:36374-DB
WP No. 43464 of 2019
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 15.11.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'The Tribunal') in O.A.No.170/00282-00286/2018, whereby the Tribunal has disposed of the Original Application by stating as under:
"13. We have gone through the main contentions of the applicants and reply of the respondents and their written arguments note in detail. The main prayer of the applicants relates to the tender notification dtd 28.03.2018 (Annexure-A11) relating to the outsourcing of services for the All India Institute of Speech & Hearing(AIISH). This Tribunal vide interim order dtd. 09.05.2018 had permitted the going ahead of tender process with respect to the Housekeeping, Civil, Electrical, Garden and Vehicle Maintenance. Only with regard to the Office Maintenance, it was specifically ordered that 'it has to be specifically informed in the notification and other connected papers that it will not prejudicially affect the service of the applicants, as the matter is subjudice' and the interim order CENTRAL ADM MINIST was modified accordingly. The interim order relating to the applicant No.4 being reinstated back to the original post was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the Hon'ble High Court in its order dtd 20.6.2018 in WP. No.21799/2018(S-CAT) has set aside the portion of the order relating to the reinstatement (Annexure-R25). The issue to be decided relates to only the question of the rights of the individuals who are contract employees for their continued employment, regularisation etc. As -4- NC: 2024:KHC:36374-DB WP No. 43464 of 2019 has been submitted by the respondents, the Institution is only outsourcing certain services for which the tender notification was issued. The respondents have also cited that this was in continuation of an earlier tender issued in the year 2013. However, we find that the 2018 tender notification has Office Maintenance and a few other services apart from the general maintenance of the hostel, garden etc. which was the scope of work in the earlier tender. Therefore, the question of quashing the tender in so far as the services of the applicants are concerned, the same cannot be done in view of the undertaking given by the respondents that even with regard to the Office Maintenance, the outsourcing shall not affect the rights of the applicants prejudicially. In other words, one set of contract employees cannot be substituted by another set of contract employees as ordered by the CAT, Principal Bench in the case of Dinesh Kumar Goutham vs. Union of India dtd 21.11.2011(Annexure-A12). The scope of work in the tender notification relating to the Office Maintenance does include data entry, administrative assistance, secretarial assistance etc. The same can be proceeded with if it is not the same kind of work that is being performed by the contract employees/administrative assistants namely the applicants No.1 to 3 in this OA.
14. The second relief sought for relates to the direction to the respondents to provide to the applicants age relaxation/weightage for the services and incorporate the same in the Advertisement and thereafter proceed for selection to the said posts giving opportunity to the applicants to participate along with others, or re- advertise the post in accordance with law. As has been submitted by the respondents, the recruitment rules have been framed for various posts and the respondents have also been issuing regular advertisements for the same. That process -5- NC: 2024:KHC:36374-DB WP No. 43464 of 2019 cannot be interfered with by this Tribunal. However, from the details of the posts approved for the respondent institute vide Annexure-R12, it is seen that under Group-C, 10 posts of Assistant Gr.ll have been approved and so far no advertisements etc. appear to have been issued in this regard by the respondent institution. It is not in dispute that the applicants have been working in the respondent institution purely on contract basis from August 2011 (Applicant No.1). February, 2010(Applicant No.2) and May, 2013(Applicant No.3). It is clear that the appointments have been made on a contract basis and every year the contract has been renewed based on the requirements of the respondent institution. The respondent institution has every right to terminate the contract of the employees as and when the need for their services is over. The contract employees cannot claim for equal pay for equal work etc. and the same has already been dismissed by this Tribunal vide its orders in ΟΑ.Νο.793/2017 & 794/2017 dtd. 17.1.2018 in relation to the applicants No.4 & 5. As has been contended by the respondents, there is no specific post approved with respect to the post being held by the Applicants No.1,2,3 & 5. Only in the case of Applicant No.4, there is an approved post of Electronic 2 Engineer for which certain recruitment rules have been prescribed. The contention of the applicants No.4 & 5 for appointment to two posts of LAD Technician has also been dismissed in the above referred OAs by this Tribunal. As such, it is clear that all the applicants do not have any right to claim regularisation and the various cases cited by them do not support their contention inasmuch as the posts they are occupying are not sanctioned posts and they were not recruited in terms of wide publicity and based on a set of procedures as per rules. Therefore, the only direction we would like to give to the respondent institution is to consider, without any prejudice or bias, the qualifications of Applicants No.1,2 & 3 at the time when the -6- NC: 2024:KHC:36374-DB WP No. 43464 of 2019 selection process for Assistant Gr.Il is made by the Institute considering the years of service put in by the applicants No.1,2 & 3 if they are otherwise found suitable in the recruitment process. With respect to the applicant No.4, as has already been noted above, this Tribunal has not found merit in his being appointed to the post of Technician over more meritorious candidates vide ΟΑ.No. 793/2017 order dtd. 17.1.2018. As has already been discussed, he has been relieved w.e.f. 17.4.2018(actually relieved on 23.4.2018) and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has also set aside the interim order of reinstatement passed by this Tribunal. We are unable to come to the assistance of applicant No.5 since no regular post is available for the designation held by him and it is for the respondent institution to take appropriate action if found necessary at the time of recruitment to the kind of work this person is engaged in.
15. The third prayer of the applicants with relation to the equal pay for equal work has already been disposed of by this Tribunal and as such does not need to be traversed now.
16. The OA is therefore disposed of with the above orders. No costs."
2. Suffice to state that, as against 5 applicants who had approached the Tribunal, only 2 have approached this Court by challenging the impugned order. It is the case of the petitioners that they were initially appointed on contract basis and have put several years of service as such. They have sought their regularization; they have in fact challenged the -7- NC: 2024:KHC:36374-DB WP No. 43464 of 2019 process of tendering followed by the respondents while making appointment on contractual basis. The petitioners had sought a direction to grant them the weightage of their service while the respondents make appointment on regular basis.
3. During the course of hearing, it transpired that the respondents have advertised the post of Technician. Out of 5 applicants, the present two petitioners have applied for the said post but were not selected for appointment to the said post.
4. The petitioners have challenged their non selection by filing a separate Original Application before the Tribunal, which has been negated. If that be so, the plea of the petitioners as canvassed by Mr. Ranganatha S. Jois, cannot be accepted. This we say so for the reason that the intent of the petitioners to approach the Tribunal was that they should be given the benefit of age relaxation/weightage of the service put in by them on contractual basis. They having not qualified in the selection process undertaken to the post of Technician, which became the subject matter of a separate Original Application, wherein they were unsuccessful, we are of the view -8- NC: 2024:KHC:36374-DB WP No. 43464 of 2019 that, in the given facts of the case, no interference is called for with the impugned order.
The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22