Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ms. Sucharita Roy ...For The vs Uma Devi Reported In on 11 April, 2011
Author: Ashim Kumar Banerjee
Bench: Ashim Kumar Banerjee
1
2 11.4.11 W.P.C.T. 333 of 2008
akb
Union of India & Ors.
-Verus-
Sujal Dutta & Anr.
Mr. Pradip Kumar Tarafdar
Ms. Sucharita Roy ...For the Petitioners
Mr. Rabindra Narayan Dutta
Mr. Hare Krishna Halder ...For the Respondents
The respondent was engaged by the petitioners initially in one project and thereafter he is shifted from one project to other. Fact remains, he was working since March 1979 until the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal impugned herein passed on June 20, 2008. The respondent prayed for his regularization. The Tribunal asked the petitioner to consider his case for absorption/regularization in one of the vacant posts of Darwan, as promised by them, within a period of three weeks. Being aggrieved, the Union of India, the petitioner above named, has come up with this application.
Mr. Pradip Kumar Tarafdar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the respondent being project employee has no right to have his service regularised. Moreover he did not participate in recruitment process for regular vacant post for which he could be considered. The Tribunal's direction for absorption in a regular post of Darwan was without any sanction of law and against the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. On the issue of project employee he cites a latest decision of the Apex Court in the Case of Rajendra and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in JT 1999 (1) SC 278. In the said case, appointments were made by District Rural Development Agency. The Apex Court observed that on fulfillment of needs of a particular project those appointments could not be 2 considered as regular appointments. He prays for setting aside of the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal.
Opposing the petition Mr. Rabindra Narayan Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that the respondent's petition before the Tribunal was based upon the legitimate expectation as repeated assurance was given to the respondent. However, each time he was shifted from one project to the other. Fact remains, he was working uninterruptedly since 1979.
We have considered the rival contentions. The law is settled. The project employee has no right to claim for regularization. Moreover regularization has no sanctity of law as it offends Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondent was working since 1979 from one project to the other. Hence, the Authority should consider him for further engagement in any suitable project if he is otherwise eligible. His prayer for regularization could not be acceded to.
W.P.C.T. 333 of 2008 succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order impugned passed by the Tribunal is set aside.
W.P.C.T. 333 of 2008 is disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs.
Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.
( Banerjee, J.) ( Dr. Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri, J.)