Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
S.Khader Babu vs The Apsrtc on 20 February, 2024
APHC010619652014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
:: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[ 3457 ]
TUESDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF
FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 40297 OF 2014
Between:
S.Khader Babu ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
THE APSRTC AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. S M SUBHAN
Counsel for the Respondents: M SOLOMON RAJU
The Court made the following:
-2-
WP.No.40297 of 2014
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
WRIT PETITION No.40297 of 2014
ORDER :
The petitioner is aggrieved by the in action of the respondents in regularizing his services even after completion of 34 years of service in the respondent/corporation. The petitioner was reinstated into service in pursuance of the Award of Labour Court dated 21.06.1996.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Coach Builder with effect from 21.01.1980. Thereafter, his services were terminated from 05.08.1982. The petitioner filed ID.No.90 of 1990 before the Labour Court, Guntur and the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service. The petitioner was reinstated into service on 21.06.1996 and has been continuing on daily wage basis.
3. The petitioner filed WP.No.26728 of 1999 seeking regularization of his services, this Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner for regularization. The respondents rejected the claim of the -3- WP.No.40297 of 2014 petitioner for regularization vide order dated 20.04.2009. The petitioner filed WP.No.20276 of 2009 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed off with a direction to consider the case of petitioner in pursuance of circulars. The respondents rejected the case of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 11.09.2014. The said proceedings are challenged in the present writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a small employee and has been continuously knocking the doors of the Courts for justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the services of the petitioner are being utilized for more than the last 40 years.
5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent/corporation submits that the impugned proceedings are passed after due consideration of all aspects relating to the petitioner and it is not the case of the petitioner that this Court in the earlier rounds of litigation passed a positive direction in favour of the petitioner to regularize the services. This Court has been consistently directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for regularization and the decision to either -4- WP.No.40297 of 2014 regularize or reject the request for regularization is to be considered by the respondents judiciously.
6. The petitioner was engaged on daily basis when there was requirement and his services were disengaged when there was no further requirement. Aggrieved by the disengagement of the petitioner in the year 1992 the petitioner has filed ID after lapse of more than eight years. However, the Labour Court never directed the respondents to re-engage the petitioner on regular basis. There is no direction from this Court to regularize the petitioner's services. The eligibility criteria for the post of Coach Builder/Artisan is one must have ITI qualification as per the notifications issued by the respondent.
7. For the purpose of considering the case of the petitioner for regularization, the petitioner must establish that he has been working against the sanctioned vacant post. There is nothing on record to establish the same. Passing orders directing respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner without there being a vacancy would amount to directing the respondent to create a super numeric post for the petitioner. This court is not inclined to pass such a -5- WP.No.40297 of 2014 direction. The contention of the learned standing counsel for the respondent/corporation that, the petitioner was engaged as Contract Labour and his appointment was not against any existing vacancy.
8. Prescribing qualifications for filling up posts is at the sole discretion of the employer. The recruitment notifications would be issued as and when there is a need for recruitment of manpower. The number of vacancies, nature of workmen required, qualifications of the workmen, experience of the workmen and suitability of the workmen for the notified post will have to be determined by the respondent.
9. In the present case, the respondent has taken a categorical stand that the petitioner was engaged on daily wages and his services cannot be regularized as Coach Builder/Artisan are required to pass ITI. The petitioner has not placed any document, such as ITI Certificate etc., on record to further his claim for regularization. The petitioner does not have ITI qualification, as such his services cannot be regularized as desired by the petitioner.
-6-WP.No.40297 of 2014
10. The claim of the petitioner for regularization on account of service for a period of over four decades cannot be considered by this Court as there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was recruited on daily wage basis against in an existing vacancy or that the petitioner has been working in an existing vacancy for the past four decades.
11. The respondent/corporation issues notifications for recruiting Coach Builders/Artisan duly prescribing the required qualifications. The petitioner ought to have applied for regular recruitment under the notifications issued by the respondent. Provided the petitioner meeting the eligibility criteria of the notification. This Court is not inclined to issue any positive direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner.
12. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, without costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.
________________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dated 20.02.2024 KGM -7- WP.No.40297 of 2014 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT PETITION No.40297 of 2014 Dated 20.02.2024 KGM