Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Anilkumar Jivaghai Jethwa vs Ut Of Daman And Diu on 6 November, 2024
1 OA.171/2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.171/2015
Dated this Wednesday, the 06th day of November, 2024
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.SHRIKRISHNA, MEMBER (A)
HON'BLE SHRI UMESH GAJANKUSH, MEMBER (J).
Anilkumar Jivabhai Jethwa,
Son of Jivabhai Gandabhai Jethwa,
Date of birth : 27.08.1972, age: 42 years,
Working as Drawing Teacher (Fine Art) (Group "B")
Non Gazetted post, in Government High School (Boys),
Ghoghla, Near Gate, Ghoghla (Diu),
DIU (Union Territory of Daman and Diu), and
residing at: 4-49, Darjiwada, Taluka and District :
DIU, State DIU - 362 520. .. Applicant.
( By Advocate Shri R.G. Walia ).
Versus
1. Union of India, through the Administrator,
Union Territory of Daman and Diu,
Secretariat Moti Daman,
Pin Code - 396 220.
2. Collector- Diu, / Add. Directorate of Education,
Administration of Daman and Diu,
Office of Collector, Education Section, Diu,
Pin Code - 362 520.
3. Director of Education,
Directorate of Education - Daman & Diu,
Education Section, Daman,
Pin Code - 396 220.
4. Secretary (Education),
Secretariat, Daman,
Pin Code - 396 220. .. Respondents.
( By Advocate Shri V.S .Masurkar ).
2 OA.171/2015
Order reserved on : 15.10.2024
Order pronounced on : 06.11.2024.
ORDER
Per : Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)
By way of this O.A., the applicant seeks to challenge the illegal, wrong, arbitrary and malicious action of the respondents of not regularising the services of the applicant even though he has put in more than 10 years of regular service under the respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case as stated in the O.A. are that in the Government High School (Boys) Ghoghla in Diu a regular sanctioned post of Drawing Teacher was in existence against which the applicant is working since year 2004. Prior to aforesaid, a regular Drawing Teacher Shri Kamlesh S. Bhoya was working and due to his sudden demise, the said regular post of Drawing Teacher fell vacant. A Labour Inspector for Diu was approached by the Collector Office Diu for sponsoring the name of eligible candidates for selection to the said regular post of Drawing Teacher. Accordingly as per the request, the list of eligible candidates were sent and as per the letter dated 15.10.2004 and list appended thereto the name of the applicant finds place at Sr.No.1. Thereafter, the applicant was called on for interview and thereafter he was selected and appointed vide order dated 20.10.2004. It is stated that prior to appointment of applicant due selection process was followed. It is stated that after 3 OA.171/2015 the appointment, applicant has performed his duties with utmost dedication and sincerity and there has been no complaint whatsoever in the work and conduct of the applicant. It is stated that he has worked continuously for more than 10 years, therefore, is entitle for regularization.
3. It is further stated that vide another order dated 02.02.2015, the applicant's appointment to the said post has been extended till 20.04.2015. It is stated that it seems that the respondents after the present ongoing academic session may not continue the services of the applicant and the Administration may try to fill up the said post ignoring the claim of the applicant for regularization and, therefore, the present O.A. has been submitted.
4. After notice, the official respondents have filed their reply dated 13.04.2015 and contested the O.A. It is stated that prior to the appointment of the applicant in the year 2004, the UT Administration of Daman and Diu appointed Smt.S.V. Patel, Drawing Teacher on daily wages in the year 1996, who has filed O.A.267/2001 for regularization of her services as a Drawing Teacher. The said O.A. was dismissed by this Tribunal on 04.05.2001 on the ground that she was not found fit as per the Recruitment Rules.
5. The aforesaid order was challenged before the Hon'ble 4 OA.171/2015 High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.3021/2001, which was dismissed vide order dated 01.11.2002. Thereafter, another O.A.85/2007 was filed before the C.A.T., Mumbai Bench in which interim order dated 23.02.2006 was passed and UT Administration of Daman and Diu was directed to keep one post of Drawing Teacher reserved for the said applicant until the outcome of O.A.85/2007. However, the said O.A.85/2007 was finally dismissed on 01.07.2011. Thereafter, the services of the said employee was terminated by the Department on 20.07.2011. The order passed in O.A.85/2007 was challenged by the said applicant before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.96/2012, however, the said Writ Petition was dismissed for want of prosecution.
6. It is stated that as per the old Recruitment Rules, the qualification of Drawing Teacher was Bachelor in Fine Arts or SSC with 3 years Diploma in Fine Arts is necessary and as per the new Recruitment Rules, for appointment of Drawing Teacher qualification is Bachelor Degree in Fine Arts is compulsory and the same is not possessed by the applicant. It is stated that the applicant was working only on daily wages and not against any sanctioned post. It was also stated that as the case of Shri Anilkumar Jethwa is identical to that of Smt.S.V. Patel and, therefore, it is prayed that the O.A. deserves to be dismissed. It is specifically stated that the applicant 5 OA.171/2015 knew that his services are not against any sanctioned post and also the said appointment is not regularized. However, in subsequent Para 12, the respondents have stated that the post on which the applicant was appointed on daily wages was vacant since year 2000 on account of death of late Shri Kamlesh S. Bhoya, Ex-Drawing Teacher and the same remained vacant till date due to interim relief passed by C.A.T., Mumbai in its order dated 23.02.2006.
7. It is stated that in view of directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi & Ors and against the clarification dated 11.04.2013 and 26.04.2013 from DoPT and MHA, none of the candidate was assured by the Competent Authority that they shall be regularized after holding the post before the appointment. Therefore, in the aforesaid reply, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the O.A.
8. Thereafter, a rejoinder dated 16.04.2015 was filed by the applicant stating that the post on which the applicant is working pertains to the Government High School, Ghoghla at Diu. At the relevant time i.e. in January / February, 2004, there were 2 sanctioned posts of Drawing Teacher which were vacant and a proposal was put up by the Education Officer, Diu for smooth functioning of Schools at Diu on 26.12.2003. After due selection process, 2 persons including the applicant were selected for 6 OA.171/2015 appointment to the post of Drawing Teacher. It is stated that the Recruitment Rules at that time of appointment of the applicant on the said post was followed in toto and thus an appointment order came to be issued to the applicant after due selection process. The applicant has placed on record the Minutes of Selection Committee. It is further stated that as per the settled principle of law, the vacancies coming into existence in a particular year have to be filled in accordance with the rules prevailing at the relevant time only when the vacancies arose. The applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Y.V. Rangaiah & Ors. Reported in (1983) SCC (L&S) 382.
9. So far as the averment in respect of Smt.S.V. Patel's case is concerned, it is specifically stated in rejoinder that the said case was not at all applicable in the applicant's case as her very appointment was against the rules that she did not have the requisite qualification as provided under 1984 Rules. It is further submitted that the applicant was appointed in Diu and the case referred was with regard to the Teacher in Daman. It is stated that the new Recruitment Rules came into existence after 12.09.2011 and not to the post on which the applicant has been working since the year 2004 in accordance with the old Recruitment Rules dated 15.03.1984.
7 OA.171/2015
10. Thereafter, the official respondents have filed additional affidavit dated 18.04.2015 stating that the applicant has not approached this Tribunal with clean hands and has suppressed the vital information that at the time of filling of vacancy of Drawing Teacher on regular basis, the UT Administration had given due consideration to the applicant and he was invited for the selection process as directed by the CAT, Mumbai vide its order dated 23.02.2006, which the applicant duly availed. The applicant appeared for the written examination, however, could not qualify in the said examination on the basis of marks obtained in written examination. In respect of information on creation of posts which was sought by the CAT, Mumbai, it is stated that the post was created by erstwhile UT Government of Goa, Daman & Diu and the present UT Administration does not possess any record as the erstwhile Government did not provide it. There is no new creation of post of Drawing Teacher in UT Administration of Daman & Diu and the proposal for creation of the post is pending with the Ministry of Home, Government of India, New Delhi. It is stated that the applicant was given due consideration for appearing for the selection process held in the year 2007 and could not get through in it. Therefore, on the basis of aforesaid additional reply, the official respondents also prayed for dismissal of O.A. 8 OA.171/2015
11. Further, another additional affidavit dated 26.06.2015 was filed by the official respondents in pursuance of proceedings dated 27.04.2015 of this Tribunal, in which clarification in respect of non- reservation ("SC" category) was explained by the official respondents mentioning the fact that at the time of filling of vacancy to the post of Drawing Teacher on regular basis advertisement was issued on 13.09.2006 for 4 posts (3-General + 1 OBC as per Roster) with the approval of the Competent Authority. Names were called from Employment Exchange, Daman & Diu. The Departmental Selection Committee met on 29.11.2007 to hold the interview for the post of Drawing Teacher in the Directorate of Education. 3 posts were reserved for general category and 1 post for OBC category as per the roster. It was stated that the applicant was very much called for interview of the said selection process but as the applicant stood at Sr.No.10 and was not selected by the DSC for want of post, he could not be appointed. Therefore, applicant's contention that he was not considered for the post of Drawing Teacher since 2009 is not correct as he was already considered and called for interview and, therefore, according to the respondents the question of regularization of the services of the applicant with effect from October, 2004 with all consequential benefits cannot be granted.
12. Thereafter, a reply dated 18.08.2015 was filed by the 9 OA.171/2015 applicant in respect of additional affidavit dated 27.04.2015, and further additional affidavit dated 26.06.2015, in which it is averred in respect of suppression of vital information has been denied and it is stated that the present case of the applicant is in respect of claiming regularization in service due to the fact that he has continued on the post of Drawing Teacher since 20.10.2004 without any break. The selection process of year 2006 was also questioned by the applicant by way of this reply.
13. Thereafter, M.A.312/2016 was filed by the official respondents for vacation of interim order dated 20.03.2015 along with order dated 02.02.2015 was also placed on record by which the applicant was appointed on short-term contract with effect from 14.10.2014 to 20.04.2015.
14. Learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Walia vehemently argued that the applicant was appointed vide order dated 20.04.2004 (Annex-A-4) as a casual worker on the post of Drawing Teacher, however, prior to aforesaid appointment due procedure was followed, names were called from Employment Exchange, applicant was participated in the selection process and only thereafter on the vacant post of late Shri Kamlesh S. Bhoya he was appointed and, therefore, the appointment of the applicant cannot be said to be a backdoor entry and since from 20.10.2004 till filing of the O.A. on 10 OA.171/2015 25.02.2015 he has already completed more than 10 years of service and, therefore, in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi(3) & Others, reported in 2006(4) SCC 1, applicant is entitle for consideration of his case for regularization with all consequential benefits.
15. During course of the arguments to substantiate the aforesaid contention that applicant was appointed on a vacant sanctioned post, he has drawn attention of this Tribunal towards Note dated 08.10.2003 (Annex-RJ-A-1) and the Minutes of Selection Committee dated 19.10.2004 (Annex-RJ-A-3), it is contended that in Annex-RJ-A-3, there is a mention of Recruitment Rules, qualification and eligibility criteria and after due consideration only the name of the applicant was recommended.
16. During course of the arguments, the learned counsel also placed reliance on the following judgments:
(i) Nihal Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others with Bhupinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 65;
(ii) High Court of Tripura, Agartala in the case of Sri Basudeb Debnath & Others Vs. Union of India & Others, Writ 11 OA.171/2015 Petition (C)No.1162/2008 along with Writ Petition © No.1161/2018, Sri Sudip Biswas & Others Vs. Union of India & Others, decided on 09.03.2021;
(iii) State of Karnataka and others Vs. M.L. Kesari and others, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247;
(iv) Amarkant Rai Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 265;
(v) Narendra Kumar Tiwari and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and others, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238;
(vi) Sachin Ambadas Dawale and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, W.P.No.2046/2010 decided on 19.10.2013; and
(vii) High Court of Bombay in the case of Vandana Narsing Chinchwade and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 462.
17. Further, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in respect of Mukesh Govindbhai Chudasama Vs. Union of India and others decided on 21.02.2024 passed by CAT, Mumbai Bench in O.A.617/2015, this Tribunal allowed the said O.A. directing the respondents to regularise the services of the said applicants on completion of 10 years of service of their engagement on contractual basis and the order in this case is squarely covers the 12 OA.171/2015 issue of the present case also.
18. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents Dr. Masurkar vehemently argued that looking to the relief clause, it is clear that the applicant is claiming regularization with effect from October, 2004 with full consequential benefits, however, prior to that no representation was submitted. It is also contended that the present O.A. is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as applicant is seeking regularization with effect from the year 2004, whereas the present O.A. is filed in the year 2015. It is further contended that looking to the Annexure A- 1 and A-2 i.e. order dated 14.10.2004 and 15.10.2004, it is clear that the said process was initiated for the post of Drawing Teacher on daily wages and in fact the applicant was appointed as a daily wager and, therefore, he has no right to claim regularization. It is contended that the appointment of the applicant as a daily wager was not against the sanctioned post and, therefore, is not entitled for any regularization.
19. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the respondents that in fact in the year 2006, the applicant had participated in the regular selection process and was unsuccessful, therefore, also he is not entitled for any regularization.
20. Learned counsel for the respondents by placing reliance 13 OA.171/2015 upon judgment in the case of Managing Director, Hindustan Photo Films and another Vs. H.B. Vinobha and others, reported in (2009) 15 SCC 50, submits that merely on the basis of long continuation due to interim order of the Court, no relief can be granted to the applicant. In the present case, the applicant is enjoying the interim relief since 20.03.2015.
21. Learned counsel also relied upon in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Bahadur Singh and others, reported in (2008) 15 SCC 737 and in the case of Sheo Narain Nagar and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2018) 13 SCC 432 and submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Constitutional Bench judgment in case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, deprecated appointment made through side / back-door being contrary to the Constitutional claim of equality and, therefore, on the basis of aforesaid judgments, the learned counsel submits that the applicant is not entitle for any relief and the O.A. is liable to be dismissed.
22. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
23. To begin with at the first stage, it is relevant here to take note of the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents in respect of delay and laches, as according to him since the applicant 14 OA.171/2015 is claiming regularization from the year 2004, whereas the present O.A. is filed in the year 2015 and, therefore, on the ground of delay and laches the O.A. is liable to be dismissed. In this regard it is suffice to say that in fact in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the claim of regularization of irregular appointees who have completed more than 10 years of service as daily wager / ad-hoc / contractual employee can be considered as onetime arrangement. In the present case, as per the averments of the applicant, he was initially engaged / appointed in October, 2004 and, therefore, he has completed more than 10 years only in the month of November, 2014 and, therefore, after completion of the aforesaid period if the O.A. is filed in the year February, 2015, then it cannot be said that the same is suffers from delay and laches.
24. So far as the merit is concerned the facts on record clearly shows that on the post of Drawing Teacher, Diu, one Shri Kamlesh S. Bhoya was working and due to his death the said post was fallen vacant. Therefore, the names of the eligible candidates were invited from Employment Exchange which is clear from the Note dated 08.10.2003 (RJ-1) and thereafter interviews were held and Selection Committee, recommended 2 names including one of the applicant and thereafter the appointment order dated 20.10.2004 15 OA.171/2015 was issued to the applicant (Annex-A-4). In the present case, the official respondents initially filed reply dated 13.04.2015 in which in Para 9, it is stated that the applicant was appointed not against any sanctioned post and the said appointment was not regular. However, in Para 12 of the same reply it is stated that the "post on which the applicant was appointed on daily wages was vacant since year 2000 on account of the death of late Shri Kamlesh S. Bhoya, ex-Drawing Teacher", meaning thereby the stand of the official respondents prima-facie appears to be contrary. At the one hand contest has been made on the ground that there was no sanctioned post and on the other hand it was stated that the said post was vacant since year 2000. By filing further additional affidavits dated 18.04.2015, 27.04.2015 and 26.06.2015 different stands have been taken for contesting the claim of the applicant of regularization. In subsequent affidavits it is stated that since he has participated in the regular selection process in the year 2006 and was not successful and the said information was vital in the present matter, therefore, on the ground of non-disclosure of material facts and on the basis of the participation in the regular selection process the applicant cannot claim for any regularization.
25. In the present case, the only question requires to be dealt with by the Tribunal is whether on completion of 10 years of service 16 OA.171/2015 as a daily wager from October, 2004, the applicant is entitled for consideration of his case for regularization in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 53 in the case of Umadevi (supra) or not and the said judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Umadevi was further followed in other cases. For the said purpose to appreciate the aforesaid point, it is necessary to reproduce Para 53 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi which reads as under:-
"53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily-wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those 17 OA.171/2015 not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."
(emphasis in original)"
26. In the case of State of Karnataka Vs. M.L. Kesari(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:-
"11. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi (3) is twofold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi (3) was rendered, are considered for regularisation in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily- wage/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods and then periodically regularise them on the ground that they have served for more than ten yers, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the diretion is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10-4-2006 [the date of decision in Umadevi(3)] without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularization. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi (3) or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularisation in terms of the above directions in Umadevi (3) as a one-time measure."
27. Further in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of Jharkhand (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 7,8, 9 and 10 observed as follows:-
"7. The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (3) was therefore twofold, namely, to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future and 18 OA.171/2015 secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past. The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the decision in Umadevi (3) is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This is precisely what Umadevi (3) and Kesari sought to avoid.
8. If a strict and literal interpretation, forgetting the spirit of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3), is to be taken into consideration then no irregularly appointed employee of the State of Jharkhand could ever be regularised since that State came into existence only on 15.11.2000 and the cut-off date was fixed as 10.4.2006. In other words, in this manner the pernicious practice of indefinitely continuing irregularly appointed employees would be perpetuated contrary to the intent of the Constitution Bench.
9. The High Court as well as the State of Jharkhand ought to have considered the entire issue in a contextual perspective and not only from the point of view of the interest of the State, financial or otherwise - the interest of the employees is also required to be kept in mind. What has eventually been achieved by the State of Jharkhand is to short circuit the process of regular appointments and instead make appointments on an irregular basis. This is hardly good governance.
10. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regularised unless there is some valid objection to their regularisation like 19 OA.171/2015 misconduct, etc."
28. In view of the aforesaid, the contention of learned counsel for the respondents is true that the illegal appointments have not been protected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Umadevi and in other judgments. However, in case of irregular appointments there is a direction for preparation of scheme and consideration of the case as a one time measure.
29. As per the facts on record as observed in preceding paragraphs of the order, it prima-facie clear that appointment of the applicant was although made a daily wager in the year 2004, however, prior to aforesaid appointment, the names were called from the Employment Exchange, there was a sanctioned post fallen vacant due to death of one Shri Kamlesh S. Bhoya, ex.Drawing Teacher and after an interview and recommendation of the selection committee appointment order was issued. Therefore, prima-facie it cannot be said that initial appointment of the applicant was illegal or back-door entry. Therefore, in view of the proposition of law after completion of 10 years his case is required to be considered as a one-time measure.
30. At this stage, it is relevant to take note of the arguments of learned counsel for the respondents on the basis of judgment in the case of Managing Director, Hindustan Photo Films and another 20 OA.171/2015 Vs. H.B. Vinobha and others (supra) that long continuation due to interim order could not be a ground for regularisation. In the present case the interim order was passed by this Tribunal on 20.03.2015 and from 20.10.2004 till the aforesaid date i.e. 20.03.2015 no interim order was operative, meaning thereby from initial engagement / appointment, the applicant was working continuously for more than 10 years and, therefore, the aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the present set of facts.
31. Further, since it is a stand of the respondents that applicant has participated in the year 2006 selection process and was unsuccessful, therefore, his case was already considered and, therefore, he is not entitled for regularization, in this regard merely on the basis of participation in the selection process and unsuccessful therein the claim of consideration for regularization cannot be curtailed as the applicant is claiming the relief of consideration of his case for regularization on the basis of proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
32. Further, although the respondents have filed initial reply dated 13.04.2015, additional affidavit dated 18.04.2015 and additional affidavit dated 26.06.2015, however, it is not clear that the selection process which was initiated in the year 2006 was concluded by issuing any appointment orders in favour of selected 21 OA.171/2015 candidates or to show that the said posts were already filled in, in the year 2006 or thereafter. These factual aspect needs to be considered by the Competent Authority while considering the case of the applicant for regularization as applicant prima-facie working on the post of Drawing Teacher since October, 2004.
33. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the present O.A. is disposed of with the following directions:-
(a) The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the applicant on the post of Drawing Teacher on the basis of completion of 10 years of service from October, 2004 strictly in conformity with observation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Umadevi and Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court within a period of 60 days by passing a detailed and speaking order from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(b) Till passing of the appropriate order by the Competent Authority in terms of "(a)" above, interim order dated 20.03.2015 shall continue.
(c) Since the present O.A. is disposed of finally, therefore, M.A.No.312/2006 needs no further order and accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Umesh Gajankush) (Shri Krishna)
Member (J) Member (A).
H
22 OA.171/2015