Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ratan Lal vs Raj. Housing Board on 25 October, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1990WLN(UC)338
JUDGMENT V.S. Dave, J.
1. Both these writ petitions have been filed by Ratan Lal Sharma who was appointed on the post of Personal Assistant to the Chairman, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur. Petition No. 69/87 has been filed challenging the order, dated December 30, 1986 by which he was deputed on Reception Counter and with a further prayer that he may be granted proper increments and orders may be passed regarding fixation of his pay, while Writ Petition No. 2439/90 has been filed with the prayer that direction be issued to regularise his services and to include his name in the seniority list of Personal Assistants at proper place and for further setting aside the order of his further deputations in the office of Deputy Housing Commissioner Circle 3, Jaipur. The Housing Board in reply to the writ petitions has stated that petitioner has no right to any post in the Housing Board, as he was appointed on contract basis, and, the question being common, these writ petitions are disposed of by this single order.
2. Brief facts leading to these writ petitions are that the petitioner was appointed as Personal Assistant to the Chairman, Rajasthan Housing Board in pay scale of Rs. 620-1100 with other usual allowances w.e.f. August 4, 1982. This order was passed under the signatures of the then Secretary, Shri Sher Nath with the approval of the Chairman and reads as under:
RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD, JAIPUR No. 4259 2nd Sept. 82.
OFFICE ORDER Shri Ratan Lal Sharma S/o Sh. Mali Ram Sharma is hereby appointed as Personal Assistant to Chairman in the pay scale of Rs. 620- 1100 with other usual allowances with effect from 4th August, '82, the date from which he has taken over as P.A. to Chairman. He will also be entitled to other facilities as admissible.
This bears the approval of Chairman.
Sd/-Sher Nath Secretary.
Copy for information and necessary action to the following:
1. PS to Chairman, RHB, Jaipur,
2. P.A. to H.C. Secretary, DAO, Dy. HC (HO), Dy. HC (J/C) Dy. HC (Kota Circle), Jodhpur Circle,
3. Finance Cell
4. All concerned.
A modification of this order was passed on September 6,1982 wherein it was mentioned that in partial modification of the previous order, dated 2nd September, 1982, Shri Ratan Lal Sharma is appointed as Personal Assistant to the Chairman, Rajasthan Housing Board on contract basis on a fixed pay of Rs. 730/- per month with other facilities like D.A., H.R.A., CCA. and other allowances admissible on such pay from time to time till his services are found suitable by the Chairman, Shri R.N. Chaudhary resigned, an order terminating the services of the peittioner, was passed. This order specifically speaks that the term of employment of Shri Ratan Lal Sharma expires from the date of resignation of Shri Chaudhary hence his services are terminated. The aforesaid order however, was withdrawn vide order, dated January 31, 1984 which reads as under:
Office order No. PER Cell 36/dated 12-1-1984 by which the services of Shri Ratan Lal Sharma P.A. to Chairman were terminated is hereby withdrawn. This bears the approval of the Chairman, R.H.B., Jaipur.
Eversince then the petitioner continued in service and was almost considered as a permanent employee of the Board such as he was permitted the registration of a house as a Board employee on April 20, 1984 and ex gratia grant at the rate of 8.33% was also paid to him vide order dated October 8, 1986. Petitioner's furthercase is that Rajasthan Housing Board in its meeting No. 127 held on October 22, 1986, under the Chairmanship of the then Chairman Shri Adarsh Kishore unanimously resolved that the services of Shri Ratan Lal Sharma should be regularised keeping in view his experience of 41/2 years, his efficiency, integrity, devotion to duty and honesty. Since inadvertently this resolution could not be incorporated in the minutes a corrigendum was issued on Novermber 6, 1986 to that effect. While he was serving as Personal Assistant to the Chairman vide order, dated December 30, 1986, he was sent on deputation at Reception Counter, it was mentioned in the order that for effective and smooth working of the Reception Counter Shri Ratan Lal Sharma presently working in Chairman cell is hereby deputed at Reception Counter vice Smt. Snehlata, Assistant and she is hereby directed to submit her joining report to the Deputy Commissioner, Housing Board, Circle-II. The petitioner in writ petition No. 69/87 challenged this order, since according to him posting at the Reception Counter was not on an equivalent post but it was demotion because this post was being held by an U.D.C. and in 113th Board's meeting dated October 15, 1984, the post of Personal Assistant to Chairman was made equivalent to P.R.O., L.A.O., A.H.O., Tehsildar, A.A.O. and Record Officer in the grade of Rs. 820-1550. On January 7, 1987, my learned brother Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kasliwal, as then he was, stayed the operation of the aforesaid order which was confirmed by my learned brother Hon'ble M.B. Sharma J. on February 25, 1987. The case there after became a Division Bench case and when it came for hearing before a Bench consisting of Hon'ble V.S. Dave and Hon'ble P.C. Jain JJ. and after hearing the parties at quite some length they were of the opinion that since the matter was betweem employer and the employee it would be better to amicably settle the dispute particulary because the petitioner was inclined to join on transferred post provided the Board considers his representation in its next meeting. He also gave to understand that he would not press the writ petition if his case is properly considered by the Board.
3. Mr. B.L. Sharma appearing for Rajasthan Housing Board was gracious enough to express his willingness to use his good offices in the Board's meeting for amicably settling the dispute so that harmonious relations exist between employer and employee and there is smooth and efficient functioning of the department. The petitioner on his part despite the confirmation of stay order paved the way for compromise by joining on the post of Counter Supervisor to show his good gesture and bonafides. However, it was given to understand thereafter that though the representation of petitioner was placed before the Board on March 25, 1987, but it was not considered favourably and the petitioner continued to serve on the post of Counter Supervisor till he was posted as Incharge Reception and Library vide order dated August 19, 1987, on which post he joined on 20th August, 1987. On may 2, 1988 the petitioner was sent on deputation in the office of the Minister, Urban Development and Housing wherefrom he was again asked to join as personal Assistant to Chairman and Incharge Reception vide order, dated August 30, 1988. The petitioner's name has not been shown in any seniority list, though he had been making representations. The Government of Rajasthan vide letter dated April 24, 1990, addressed to the Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board asked the reason for not including his name in the seniority list and directed that till then seniority list should not be finalised. Before any decision could be taken or communicated, vide order, dated June 4, 1990, the petitioner was transferred/posted in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Housing Circle II, Jaipur which order he challenged in writ petition No. 2439/90. The petitioner's case therefore, is that he is illegally being deprived of his legal right of being fixed in the payscale of the post of Personal Assistant to Chairman and further that he has a right to be posted on the post of Personal Assistant to the Chairman or its equivalent post available. Petitioner's further grievance is that he has wrongly been treated as on contract basis appointee which came to be terminated as soon as the order terminating his services were withdrawn vide order dated January 31, 1984.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri S.C. Agrawal on the aforesaid facts submitted that it is regrettable that a statutory body like Rajasthan Housing Board is playing with the career of its employee who has always been considered to be a man of high integrity, having dedicated devotion to duty and is efficient in his work and whose services had been appreciated from time to time, in as much as the Board in its meeting dated October 22, 1986 after considering his various qualities unanimously resolved to regularise his services. Further submission of the learned Counsel is that under the garb of the transfer orders issued from time to time he is being demoted to the lower posts. To illustrate he submit that earlier he was deputed to work as Counter Supervisor and now in the office of a Deputy Commissioner where no post equivalent to the post of Personal Assistant to Chairman exists. It is submitted that once the order appointing him on contract basis followed by order of termination of his service was unconditionally withdrawn and then the Board resolved to regularise his services on the post of Personal Assistant to Chairman he ought to have been given the pay scale of the post of L.A.O., A.H.O., Record Officer, A.A.O. or Public Relation Officer and is liable to be transferred on any of these posts. It is submitted that the non-petitioner is not granting any increment to the petitioner who is serving efficient for five years and this action is wholly unjust, arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair. Learned Counsel submitted that since the petitioner is serving the statutory Corporation having force of law the petitioner has a statutory status and his employment has to be considered as a matter of status and not of contract. It is then submitted that the petitioner who had been continuously serving for such a long period, his services are required to be regularised. Even assuming that he does not have minimum educational qualification but that ought to have been seen at the time of initial appointment and it has no relevance at the stage of confirmation. Reliance is this connection has been placed on Bhagwatiprasad v. Delhi State Min.Dev. Corp. . It is further submitted that considering for a moment that it was because of the humanatarian consideration that the order of termination was withdrawn yet when the petitioner has been continued in service even if on contractual service for five years, sword of damocles cannot be kept hanging over his neck for all times. It is wholly unwarranted in a welfare State.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent Shri B.L. Sharma submitted that Shri R.N. Chaudhary when was appointed as Chairman of Rajasthan Housing Board he was given status of a Cabinet Minister for the purposes of status, emoluments and other facilities and as per the Circular of the Government dated December 1, 1969, he was entitled to have a Private Secretary or Personal Assistant of his own choice who might not have already been in service. According to the Circular such persons' appointment are on contractual basis and they get fixed pay per month in accordance with the instructions given in the Circular. The petitioner was neither in Government service nor in service of the respondents and he was given a contractual appointment as is apparent from the order dated September 6,1982, on a fixed pay of Rs. 730/- P.M. This appointment was co-terminus with the tenure of Shri Ram Narain Chaudhary as Chairman or till the petitioner's services were found to be suitable. It is submitted that his salary of Rs. 730/- was increased to Rs. 890/- and he was paid accordingly. Respondents' case is that Shri Ratan Lal is only matriculate and the minimum qualification even for the lowest ministerial post, i.e., Junior Assistant in the Board is higher secondary and as such he does not fulfil even that qualification. His submission is that for the post of Personal Assistant one must be a graduate with minimum speed of 100/40 words per minute in English Shorthand and Typing respectively with atleast five yearss' experience of working in similar capacity and the petitioner does not have the aforesaid eligibility and therefore, he is not entitled to be fixed in any grade and his services being purely on contractual basis, he cannot claim regularisation. It is submitted that the petitioner manoeuvred the order of withdrawal dated January 31, 1984, and continued in service despite the fact that incoming Chairman did not enjoy the status of a Cabinet Minister. It is submitted that Board never regularised the services of the petitioner much less as stated by petitioner that it was in 127th meeting of the Board that an unanimous resolution was adpoted. The fact is that it was neither on agenda nor any resolution was adopted. There is no mention of resolution in the minutes. It is submitted that the petitioner has neither lien on any post nor is entitled to continue in service in Rajasthan Housing Board for any fixed period or term. It was just on humanatarian ground that without reducing his fixed pay or other allowances he was shown grace by posting him on Reception Counter. It is submitted that the petitioner's personal service book is not traceable and as he is enjoying a special status he might have got it concealed or removed.
6. Mr. S.C. Agrawal submitted in rejoinder that the Board's assertion that service of the petitioner remained contractual after withdrawal of the termination order is an argument wholly deviod of force as is apparent from the status of the petitioner shown in his service book and other record. It is submitted that respondents are deliberately misleading the court that minimum qualification for being appointed to the lowest ministerial post of Junior Assistant is Higher Secondary. He placed on record the list of matriculate employees of the Board which is as under:
1. Mr. S. Sarandharan PA 820-1550 Matriculate 28-1-74
2. R.C. Buliwal " " 10-1-77
3. Vijayan K. " SSLC 7-1-77
4. Vijay Kumari N Jr.Asstt 490-840 SSLC 8-11-74
5. Mrs. Annamma Samuel " " " 12-1-74
6. Kedar Mathur " " Secondary 14-11-73
7. Mrs. Rajrani Khurana " " " 12-2-75
8. Mrs. Manoharlal " " " 22-2-75 He submitted that one can only feel bemoan at the attitude of respondent when it is submitted that the petitioner successfully manoeuvred the order of withdrawal. The said order was passed by the Secretary of the Raj. Housing Board with the approval of the then Chairman of the Board as is clearly borne out from Annexure Rule 1/5. It is then submitted that even otherwise the petitioner was intended to be confirmed as the Housing Board in its 112th meeting held on August 16, 1984 resolved that all the employees who have completed two years of service in the Housing Board should be confirmed and their orders should be issued forthwith. In the case of the petitioner there is specific resolution of the Board dated October 22, 1986.
7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and have perused the entire record of both the writ petitions.
8. There is no dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed by the then Chairman, Shri Ram Narain Chaudhary, who had been given the rank of a Cabinet Minister, under the powers, he derived from the Circular of the Government dated December 1, 1969 wherein it is mentioned as under:
GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS PERSONNEL (A.I) ...
No. F. 4(12) Apptts (C)/53-Pt.II dated, Jaipur, 1-12-1969.
ORDER
In supersession of all Government orders issued from time to time on the subject, Government are pleased to order that henceforth appointments to the post of Private Secretary/Personal Assistant to Minister/Minister of State/Deputy/Minister shall be regulated as under: Appointment as Private Secretary or Personal Assistant of a person not in service of the Government of Rajasthan.
A Mininster/Minister of State/Deputy Minister may select a person, not in service of Government of Rajasthan, at his discretion, for appointment as his Private Secretary or Personal Assistant on a contract basis and on such pay as may be determined by him but not exceeding Rs. 1120/- per month in the case of Private Secreatary and not exceeding Rs. 890/-per mont in the case of Personal Assistant with facilities for Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance and City Compensation Allowance as may be admissible to Govt. servants on such pay from time to time. Provided that a person retired from service of Government of Raj. other State Governments or Government of India, if appointed as Private Secretary or Personal Assistant his pay shall be fixed in accordance with the provisions contained in G.R.D. No. 1 appearing below Rule 337 of R.S.R. and in addition to pay so fixed he shall be entitled to D.A., H.R.A. & CCA. as may be admissible to Government servants from time to time on the basis of gross amount of pension and or pension equivalent of other forms of retirement benefit does not exceed Rs. 1120/- in the case of Private Secretary and Rs. 890/-in the case of Personal Assistant, (figure of Rs. 1120/- and 890/- instead of 900/- and 730/-substituted vide order No. F.4 (12) Apptts (C)/53/Pt.II Dated 8-8-1983).
9. From the perusal of the above it is clear that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis and he was initially paid a fixed salary of Rs. 730/- per month plus other allowances which were subsequently increased to Rs. 890/- p.m. However, a significant fact in this case is that this appointment on contract basis service was terminated vide order, dated January 12, 1984. In this order it was specifically mentioned that in view of the fact that Shri R.N. Chaudhary has resigned from Chairmanship, terms of the service of the petitioner also expires from that date and hence his services are terminated. This order was perfectly valid and could not have been challenged anywhere. However, the difficulty arose because the newly appointed Chairman of the Board, who was not entitled to have a Personal Assistant of his own choice thought it proper to continue the petitoner as Personal Assistant and, therefore, directed the order dated January 12, 1984, to be withdrawn. Consequently vide order dated January 31,1984 the order dated January 12,1984 terminating the service of the petitioner as Personal Assistant was withdrawn. Regarding this withdrawal the case of the respondent is that it was manoeuvred by the petitioner. I can only bemoan at the attitude of the officer of Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur who has filed the affidavit in support of the reply who has used such a terminology. The order, dated 31st January, 1984, was passed by the then Secretary with the approval of the then Chairman of the Rajasthan Housing Board and it cannot be presumed for a moment that an employee could manoeuvre an order of withdrawal from the incoming Chairman. It could be otherwise that the petitioner's work was to the utter satisfaction of the Chairman and he wanted to contuine him on job despite the fact that he could not have a Personal Assistant of his own choice. His appointment on the post from 31-1-1984 therefore, could not have been on the contractual basis as neither the Chairman who was not given a rank of a Cabinet Minister could so appoint nor it was so mentioned in the order. This order at best could be temporary appointment on the post of Personal Assistant to Chairman subject to reles of eligiblity and confirmation by the Board. The petitioner continued in this appointment till December 30,1986 when the then Chairman appointed his Stenographer, Shir B.L. Bagwani as Personal Assistant to Chairman in place of the petitioner. However, it is relevant to mention here that in the meeting of the Board dated October 22, 1986 it was resolved to regularise the service of the petitioner. A controversy has been raised by the respondent about genuineness of the document Nos. 2 and 3 placed by the petitioner on record which is a corrigendum and the resolution of the Board. According to the Housing Board it was not on the agenda of the meeting dated October 22, 1986, wherein the case of the petitioner Ratan Lal Sharma might have been considered. He placed cyclostyled copies of the minutes of meetings dated October 22, 1986, and December 20, 1986 According to the respondent document Nos. 2 and 3 were never received in the office of the Board nor was the decision of the Board ever taken by it. The Board's case is that had the resolution been passed in the meeting dated October 22, 1986, a corrigendum would have been circulated, then it would have found place in the subsequent meeting whereby the minutes of the earlier meeting had been confirmed. The Board has also in support of its case placed on letter from one of the member of the Board, namely, Shri Gajanand, Dero wherein he has raised objection about item No. 11 of 127th meeting of the Board but that does not pertain to Ratan Lal, the petitioner. There may be truth in what is submitted by respondent, but at the same time Board has not denied that Annexures 2 and 3 have not been signed by as many as five persons out of 8 persons who had attended the meeting dated October 22, 1986, and even Housing Commissioner has not denied the signatures of these five members on this letter. Even if it is assumed for a moment that resolution was not adopted yet these letters are indicative of the fact that majority of the members were in favour of regularising the service of the petitioner and there was no impediment in his way for getting his service regulated so far as his efficiency, honesty and integrity were concerned. The utility of the petitioner in the department because of his efficiency in work is further confirmed by the fact that when he was transferred on deputation on Reception Counter which order has been challegned in writ petition No. 69/87 the then Chairman, Shri Adarsh Kishore, while appointing Shri Bagawani as has personal assistant and sending the petitioner on deputation it was for improving the efficiency of the Reception Counter. The order Annexure 2 in Writ Petition No. 69/87 reads as under:
For effective and smooth functioning at the Reception Counter Shri Ratan Lal Sharma presently working in Chairman cell is hereby deputed at Reception Counter vice Smt. Snehlata Assistant and she is being directed to submit her joining report to the Deputy Housing Commissioner, Circle II, Jaipur against vacant post with immediate effect. This bears the approval of the Chairman R.H.B., Jaipur.
The words for effective and smooth functioning at Reception Counter' and 'is hereby deputed at Reception Counter' are of great significance. The first two words bear testimonial and lead to irrestible conclusion about his competence to handle the responsible post and the words 'deputed' connotes that he was in appointment who could be sent to the new post. The word 'deputed' according to Webester III International Dictinonary means to appoint, to allot, to esteem etc. It also means that a person is asked to act or function as a substitue in another man's place or sent to work temporarily with a right to re-call. Deupting him on the post of Reception Counter clearly means that Rajasthan Housing Board considered his appointment as an employee regularly appointed in the Rajasthan Housing Board. Had his services been cosidered on contractual basis for particular post he could be continued on that post alone till the contract subsists. This order Annexure 2 was later on modified by order dated August 19, 1987 (Ann. 14 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2439/90) This order reads as under:
RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD, JAIPUR No.P-1(l)Karmik/P.A./6/82/1676 dated 19-8-87 OFFICE ORDER In supersession of order No. P-1(1)/Karmik/86/3118 dated 30-12- 1986 and without prejudice to the decision of the Hon'ble Court of Rajasthan in writ petition No. 69/87, Shri Ratan Lal Sharma, P.A. to Chairman working in Chairman's cell is hereby designated to work as Incharge, Reception till further orders or till the decision in the pending writ petition.
The terms and conditions of service of Shri Ratan Lal Sharma will remain unaltered during this period. Shri Ratan Lal Sharma, besides working as Incharge, Reception will also undertake the task of setting up the Board's Library with the help of the Public Relation Officer.
Sd/-
(N.K. Sethi) Secretary.
10. A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that during the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner was not only designated to work as Incharge Reception but he was also directed to undertake the task of setting up the Board's library with the help of Public Relation Officer. This all indicates that the petitioner was being given the job of setting up the library also which was under the Public Relation Officer of the Board. He had thus been used by the Board as and when efficiency was required though he was being given the emoluments as Personal Assistant to the Chairman on a contractual basis. Further orders of transfer, which are subject matter of challenge in writ petition No. 2439/90, for the first time have a recital about contract basis which has been mentioned in the bracket. The order is in Hindi and reads as under:
Jh jruyky 'kekZ futh lgk;d dkUVsDVªokyk tks orZeku es v/;{k izdks"B es dk;Zjr gSA dks rqjar izHkko ls mi vkoklu vk;qDr] o`Rr f}rh;] t;iqj ds dk;Zky; es LFkkukUrfjr inLFkkfir fd;k tkrk gSA mDr vkns'kks dks volku vk;qDr egksn; dk vuqeksnu izkIr gS A In my opinion no such order could be passed transferring posting a person on contract basis in any other office if the services were to be treated on contractual basis. Merely writing in the bracket which has been mentioned above, has been written for the first time, has only been mentioned to base the argument in the court that he continues to be on contractual basis and the words are of no significance in the eye of law. It may be mentioned here that even during the pendency of the writ petition, for some time the petitioner was appointed to work as Private Secretary to the Minister for Transport as is borne out from Ann. 10 in latter writ petition i.e. an order passed by the Minister himself. These all orders and appointments of the petitioner on the various posts are indicative of the fact that his appointment was considered to be a regular appointment and his functioning was appreciated by all and sundary. There are two documents on record which further show that the petitioner is a person who was dedicated and devoted to his duty and for that following two certificates which are on record lend corroboration Performance appraisal written by the Chairman reads as under:
This is to certify that Shri Ratan Lal Sharma is working as a P.A. to the undersigned. He is an intelligent, sincere and an outstanding worker. He executed all assignments entrusted to him during the tenure with exemplary zeal and enthusism, he is very sober in behaviour and knows well now to deal with senior officers and those calling upon the Chairman. He is fully dedicated and devoted to his duty and never minds working in odd hours for days together. He is an asset to the Board. I wish him success in life.
Another certificate is as under:
This is to certify that Shri Ratan Lal Sharma is working as a P.A. to Chairman, Rajasthan Housing Board. He is an efficient, intelligent and sincere person. He is fully dedicated to his work. To the best of my knowledge he bears a good moral character. I wish him success in his life.
11. From the aforesaid certificates as well as from the facts I have mentioned above, without fear of contradiction it could be concluded that the petitioner had justified his retention in the Rajasthan Housing Board for which even after his contractual period was over and his services were terminated, yet he was recalled by withdrawing earlier order. It may be that the petitioner might not be fulfilling the eligiblity conditions for entering into the job, but once his functioning was seen, the authorities concerned were impressed by his efficiency as he had belied the thinking that educationally qualified person alone could perform his duties on the post he was appointed. I am not for a moment be mistaken that the eligibility about educational qualification should be given a complete go bye or that relexation should be made therein, but in the special circusmtances of the present case where it has been demonstrated by the petitioner that other similarly situated persons who had no basic qualification had been regularised by the Board, I see no point in the attitude of the authorities in giving a different treatment to the case of the petitioner. No satisfactory reply could be given to the allegations of the petitioner in his writ petition wherein it has been mentioned that the employees whose names have been mentioned earlier in the judgment, while quoting the argument of Mr. Agrawal were all matriculate and are continuing eversince 1973 onwards. Besides this the Board in its 112th Meeting had taken a decision that services of the temporary employees should be regularised and number of persons' services had been regularised in pursuance of the same. Had the Board taken into consideration the case of the petitioner in right perspective there was no legal impediment in regularising his case which was at par with that of other employees. The argument of the learned Counsel for the Board that regualtion had come into force laying down the eligiblity condition for appointment when the question of confirmation of the petitioner could not be considered, has been made to be rejected in view of the clear verdict of their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down in Jarnail Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. wherein it has been held as under:
In the instant case, ad hoc services of the appellants have been arbitrarily terminated as no longer required while the respondents have retained othere Surveyors who are juniors to the appellants. Therefore, on this ground also, the impugned order of termination of the services of the appellants are illegal and bad being in contravention of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articls 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
In a recent judgment their Lordships of the Supreme Court have categorically stated that the question of minimum educational qualification is relevant at the stage of appointment and not at the stage of confirmation when the workers gain long practical experience. In Bhagwatiprasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation it has been held as under:
Practical experience would always aid the person to effectively discharge the duties and is a sure guide to assess the suitability. The initial minimum educational qualification prescribed for the different points in undoubtedly a factor to be reckoned with, but it is so at the time of the initial entry into the service. Once the appointments were made as daily rated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualifications.
12. I have already mentioned above that the petitioner has not only gained experience but has also been considered as an asset to the Board and in these circumstances after his practically 8 years serving in the Board, it would be travesty of justice qua him in case it is being held that he continues to be on contractual service and his services are terminable by revoking the contract. The petitioner having put in 8 years' service to the best of the satisfaction of his superiors with absolutely nothing adverse to him, in my humble opinion he has acquired a right to continue in service as a regular employee in the Board and his services require to be regularised with effect from 31st January, 1984, when the termination order was withdrawn. This is becuase from 4th August, 1982 to 12th January, 1984, he was on contractual basis and the contract had come to an end on the latter date. I have already observed above that on 31st January, 1984 when the order of withdrawal of termination order was passed the Board was not competent to give a contract appointment as the then Chairman in January, 1984 could not have appointed a P.A. of his own choice on contract basis because he was not having a status of a Cabinet Minister and for that purpose the petitioner' appointment will have to be given as temporary appointment w.e.f. 31st January, 1984 and since then he is in continuous service of the Board in pay scale of Rs. 820-1550, he has a right to be regularised in this pay scale on the post of Personal Assistant or on equivalent post however, ranking as junior most in this grade.
13. In view of the fact that a common judgment has been delivered in both the writ petitions, having considered all the facts and circumstances of both the writ petitions, the result is that the writ petitions are allowed, respondents are directed to regularise the services of the Personal Assistant in a regular pay scale and his name should be included in the seniority list of Personal Assistants, however, treating him as a junior most as on 31st January, 1984. No orders are required to be passed in respect of his other postings in view of the fact that respondents are directed to regularise his services and post him as Personal Assistant or a post equivalent to that in the scale of Rs. 820-1550. In the circumstances of the case I, direct the respondents to pay a cost of Rs. 2000 to the petitioner.