Madras High Court
Union Of India (Uoi) Rep. By Its ... vs M. Kannaiya And Ors. on 21 June, 2004
Author: F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla
Bench: P.K. Misra, F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla
ORDER F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.
1. The Union of India is the petitioner in this writ petition. The challenge is to the common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 05.12.2003 in O.A.Nos.212 to 216 of 2003 in and by which, the Tribunal had granted the following relief in Para-10:
"In the conspectus of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the respondents to evaluate a policy/scheme as has been done in the Cochin Regional Passport Office and hold a Departmental Competitive Examination exclusively for regularisation of casual labours as a one time measure by giving age relaxation and weightage to casual labour service rendered by the applicants and other relaxed standards of qualification as the respondents deem it fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and based on such selection, appoint the applicants in the regular vacancy. However, we make it clear that the intermittent non engagement of some of the applicants herein should not stand in the way of their selection. We direct the respondents to process the above said direction as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
2. For better appreciation of the controversy involved, a brief facts are required to be stated. The respondents 1 to 17 were all employed as casual workers in the Regional Passport Office, Madras. Nine out of 17 contesting respondents herein, earlier filed O.A.Nos.394 and 399 of 1995, challenging the order of disengagement and seeking regularisation as Lower Division Clerks in the same office with effect from the date of initial engagement with all consequential reliefs. It requires to be stated that the other contesting respondents herein were indisputably were similarly placed like that of those nine applicants. The said O.A.Nos.394 and 399 of 1995 was disposed of by the Tribunal by its order dated 22.06.1995, wherein the Original Applications came to be allowed to the limited extent by giving certain directions. It would be relevant to extract those directions for our present purpose which are to the following effect:
"(i) .......
(ii) The respondents shall consider the applicants for appointment in any regular vacancies that might arise in the office of the second respondent and which could be filled by direct recruitment, if the applicants are otherwise qualified and eligible for those posts.
(iii) For this purpose, the length of casual service of the applicants rendered here, should be considered for relaxing the age bar if any, for such appointments.
(iv) The respondents may consider giving weightage to the casual work rendered by the applicants in this Department and their past service records for the purpose of their selection to those regular posts.
(v) In others respects the Original Applications are dismissed."
3. Aggrieved against the order of the Tribunal dated 22.06.1995, the applicant therein went before the Honourable Supreme Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal in SLP(Civil).Nos.24535 to 24536 of 1995 and the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss those SLPs in its order dated 13.11.1995. Earlier orders of the Tribunal dated 22.06.1995 in O.A.Nos.394 and 399 of 1995 thus became final and conclusive. Thereafter, those applicants filed contempt applications in CA.No.24 of 1996 before the Administrative Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal while ordering notice to the respondents and posting the same for hearing on 03.03.1997 was pleased to observe as under in Para-3:
"On a perusal of the orders passed particularly at pages 8 & 19, we note that the respondents themselves had admitted that the applicants were considered against the special qualifying examination held in 1993 by the Staff Selection Commission. This examination was held fro regularisation of casual workers, and the applicants in O.A.No.394/95 were not eligible to sit for the examination since they had not completed the minimum period of one year. The applicants in O.A.No.399/95 sat for the examination but had failed. Admittedly, the special qualifying examination was held for regularising in Group 'C' posts. Hence in view of the orders passed on 22.6.95, the respondents should at least now considered the applicants against the vacancies in the office of the second respondent which could be filled by direct recruitment, if the applicants are otherwise qualified and eligible for those posts."
Nevertheless ultimately the contempt application came to be dismissed on 03.03.1997. Subsequently another contempt application in CA.No.11 of 1997 was also moved at the instance of those applicants which was also dismissed as not maintainable. However, it was held therein that if the applicants were aggrieved as against any appointments made, it would be open for them to challenge those appointments pointing out the clarification made in CA.No.24 of 1996 as well as leave granted in O.A.No.394 and 399 of 1995. Further, it is also relevant to note that when one other O.A. in O.A.No.949 of 1995 filed by one of the contesting respondents herein along with one Thiru K. Kabilan was moved for regularisation of their services, the Tribunal took the view that in the light of the orders passed in O.A.Nos.394 and 399 of 1995, no further directions were required. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that the petitioner herein in its reply took a categorical stand that earlier order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.394 and 399 of 1995 could be followed in the case of the applicants in O.A.No.949 of 1995 also.
4. In the above stated background, when certain appointments in Group-C post came to be made, respondents 2 to 17 approached the Tribunal by way of the present applications in O.A.Nos.212 to 216 of 2003 contending that such appointments would be contrary to the earlier directions of the Tribunal dated 22.06.1995 in O.A.Nos.394 and 399 of 1995 and that the petitioners should be directed to consider them for appointments in any regular vacancies that might arise in the office of the second petitioner which could be filled by direct recruitment. The Tribunal taking note of its earlier orders has held that the present appointments by order dated 10.12.2003 need not be interfered with, while at the same time having regard to the earlier chequered history of the case, there should be a departmental competitive examinations exclusively for the present contesting respondents for their regularisation as a one time measure by giving necessary age relaxation and weightage to the casual labour service rendered by them and also by giving other standard relaxation of qualifications as the petitioner may deem fit. The Tribunal also made it clear that the intermittent non engagement of some of the applicants herein should not stand in the way of their selection. The Tribunal also fixed a period of four months for carrying out the above said exercise.
5. Mr. R. Santhanam, SCCG strenuously contended that all the contesting respondents were never made as Group-D employees and inasmuch as they continue to remain as casual laborers, they would not be eligible for being considered straight away to be appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk which is a Group-C Post and therefore, there could be no competitive examination held exclusively for the contesting respondents as has been directed by the Tribunal. The learned counsel also contended that when even as per the earlier order of the Tribunal, the claim of the contesting respondents can be considered only as and when vacancies arise in Group-D post there could never be a consideration for regularization in Group-C post. The learned counsel therefore contended that the order of the Tribunal impugned in the writ petition cannot be sustained.
6. Having heard Mr.R. Santhanam, learned counsel for the petitioner, we are unable to appreciate the stand of the petitioner. As stated earlier, the contesting respondents herein along with certain others were fighting for their rights as from the years 1995 onwards. Though earlier in the year 1995, they sought for regularisation, the Tribunal thought it fit to give the petitioners herein to exercise their power and discretion to regularise the services of the contesting respondents herein in the appropriate manner as and when the vacancies arise subsequent to the year 1995, but nevertheless made it clear that such regularisation should be considered in the posts which could be filled by direct recruitment, if the contesting respondents herein were otherwise qualified and eligible for those posts. The Tribunal also made it clear in the said order dated 22.06.1995 that the length of the casual services of the respondents herein should be considered for regularising the age bar, if any for such appointment apart from giving the weightage to the casual work rendered and their past service records for the purpose of their selection to those regular posts. Further the said order having been confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court, though at the instance of the contesting respondents herein, it will have to be held that the Tribunal had an occasion to clarify its order by stating that the petitioners would at least consider the contesting respondents against the vacancies that may arise for direct recruitment for considering the regularisation of the present contesting respondents. The Tribunal also noted that the special qualifying examination held at that point of time was for regularising them in Group 'C' posts. The said clarification came to be made on 14.11.1996. Further yet another order dated 06.06.1997, the stand of the petitioners themselves came to be noted by the Tribunal wherein the petitioners took the categorical stand in the reply that the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 22.06.1995, in O.A.No.394 and 399 of 1995 would be honoured in the case of the contesting respondents herein. That apart, in the present impugned order, the Tribunal has taken note of one another factor, viz., similarly situated casual employees whose claim for regularisation was considered by the Central Administrative Tribunal of Ernakulam who in its order dated 28.04.1997 in C.A.No.11 of 1997 was pleased to order for their regularisation which was also duly carried out by the petitioners in the post of LDC.
7. In such circumstances, by the impugned order, the Tribunal has only applied the very same reasoning and action taken by the petitioner in the matter of regularisation of similarly situated casual employees, in the Group-C post, while passing the impugned directions in Para-10 of its order which has been extracted earlier. Therefore having regard to the fact that the contesting respondents have been serving the petitioner herein as casual employees for more than a decade and that their claims have also been favourably directed to be considered by the Tribunal earlier which had become final and conclusive, the present impugned order of the Tribunal cannot be held to be unjustified or irrational, while directed the department to conduct competitive examination exclusively for the regularisation of the present contesting respondents which had been done with a view to render substantial justice to them.
8. Looked at from any angle, we do not find any justification in the stand of the petitioners made in these writ petitions, while challenging the order impugned herein. The Writ petitions have no merits and they are dismissed. The time granted by the Tribunal is extended by four more months from this date. Consequently, connected WPMPs are closed. No costs.