Delhi High Court
Shri A.K. Nahara And Others vs School Of Planning And Architecture, ... on 13 March, 2001
Author: Mukundakam Sharma
Bench: Mukundakam Sharma
ORDER Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.
1. The petitioners herein were appointed on daily wage contract basis as lower division clerks by the respondent school. In their appointment letters it was mentioned that the said appointments are for specified period on daily wage basis and the said contractual appointments on daily wage would not entitled them for regularisation against any vacancy in the school. It was further mentioned that during the period of their contractual appointments their services are liable to be terminated without notice and without any cause assigned.
2. The petitioners were engaged int eh aforesaid capacity in the mont of June, 1999. It is contended by the petitioners in the writ petition that they were engaged as casual workers on daily wage basis after they qualified in the test held by the Selection Committee. On 18.2.2000 the present writ petition was field by the petitioners praying for regularisation of their services in the post of lower division clerks and to grant them temporary status terms of Government of India's instructions.
3. The writ petition is contested byte respondents, who have filed a counter affidavit contending inter alia that upon a requisition letter to the Employment Exchange and on the basis of which, the names of the petitioners were forwarded by the said Exchange. The petitioners were engaged as LDCs as an interim time-gap arrangement pending finalisation of the recruitment process. it is stated that when the respondents started the process of direct recruitment for filling up 8 posts of LDCs the petitioners approached this court praying for regularisation of their services. it is also state that the SPA Recruitment Rules specifically lay down the process of direct recruitment for filling up the posts of LDCs and that appointment on regular basis to the said post cold only be made through the process of the aforesaid procedure prescribed. it is also contended that the said selection process could not be resorted to by the respondents and therefore, till such time the regular appointments were made through regular recruitment process the respondents resorted to ad hoc appointment of the petitioners on contractual basis. it was also stated by the respondents that the process of selection as prescribed under the recruitment rules was not resorted to while making the aforesaid contractual appointments and that none of the petitioner had to undergo the test/interview which was prescribed under the aforesaid recruitment rules and that they were simply drafted in service through Employment Exchange which forwarded their names to the respondent after a letter indicating their requirement of temporary hands. It is also stated that there was no test/interview conducted by any selection committee and since it was only a temporary engagement their suitability was examined only by an ad hoc committee and therefore, the said appointments do not give any vested right to the petitioners to be regularised in the posts of LDCs.
4. In the background of the aforesaid facts which were highlighted and the arguments advanced by the counsel appearing for the parties as also the records of this case, I proceed to decide the present writ petition.
5. The appointment letters placed on record by the petitioners would indicate that they were appointed as Lower Division Clerks on daily wage contract basis for specified period. it was one of the stipulations of the appointment that the said appointment on daily wages wold not entitle the petitioners for regularisation of their services against any vacancy in the school. Advertisements were also made by the respondents for filling up 8 posts of LDCs on regular basis. The recruitment rules of the respondent also provide that terms and conditions of all posts except Peons and equivalent staff are to be advertised unless otherwise decided by the Board and the selection is to be made by the Committee appointed by the Board for such purpose. Selection to the posts like lower division clerks in the school is also to be made by the Junior Staff Selection Committee constituted by the Board in terms of regulation 1.4. A detailed procedure of selection is also laid down in regulation 1.7. to 1.12.
6. In the background of the aforesaid facts and the relevant regulations which also govern the cases of the petitioners the issue that arises for my consideration is whether by virtue of the appointment letters issued to the petitioners appointing them on daily wage contract basis the petitioners are entitled to be regularised without following the aforesaid procedure laid down in the Staff Service Regulations. It cannot be denied that the petitioners at the time of their initial appointment did not go through the rigours of the method of selection as prescribed under the Staff Service Regulations. The contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners were appointed through a regular selection test held by the Selection Committee like interview, typing test and computer test, is denied by the respondents when they have specifically stated in the counter affidavit that none of the petitioners, when they were taken in service on ad hoc daily wage basis had undergone any of the test/interview prescribed under the recruitment rules of the school. Be that as it may, the initial appointment of the petitioners is on daily wage contract basis and it was specifically mentioned that such appointments would not entitled them for regularisation against any vacancy in the school. The petitioners were fully aware of the aforesaid condition and with their open eyes accepted the said offer and continued to work in thee aforesaid capacity. Now when advertisements have been made for filling up 8 vacant posts of LDCs on regular basis they have rushed to this court seeking for regularisation which is contrary to one of the stipulations in their orders of appointment. Since the initial appointment of the petitioners was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the regulating and was on contract basis on daily wages they cannot have any right to the said posts until they are duly selected and appointed. Advertisements have now been issued by the respondents for filling up 8 vacancies to the posts of LDCs though the regular process of selection. The very object of selection is to test the eligibility and then to make selection in accordance with rules prescribed for recruitment giving an opportunity to all the qualified persons to be considered for selection.
7. When the petitioner were initially appointed they did not go through the rigour of the said selection as prescribed under the regulations and their suitability was considered only to a limited extend for the purpose of their contract appointment. Therefore, no relief could be granted to the petitioners as sought for in the writ petition directing for regularisation in their services without being selected through a regular process of selection in accordance with the rules prescribed for recruitment. Since an advertisement has been made by the selection for filling up 8 posts of LDCs the petitioners shall be at liberty to appear in the selection and prove their eligibility and once they prove the same they would be entitled to be selected and appointed in accordance with the rules prescribed for recruitment. Accordingly, it is held that no relief could be granted to the petitioners as sought for by directing for regularisation of their services automatically. The petitioners shall have the liberty to submit their applications, if not already submitted, within a week from today and they shall have the right to appear and to be considered in the selection process by the duly constituted selection committee for regulate appointment.
8. In terms of the aforesaid observations and directions the writ petition stands disposed of but without any order as to costs.