Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Vipulkumar Solanki vs Ut Of Dadra And Nagar Haveli on 29 October, 2021
1 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BOMBAY BENCH, MUMBAI.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020
Dated this Friday the 29th day of October, 2021
CORAM: DR. BHAGWAN SAHAI, MEMBER (A)
RAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER (J)
1. Vipulkumar Umedsinh Solanki
Indian Inhabitant, Aged : 42 Yrs.
At Po. NroliMorifaliya,
Kumabharvada,
D.N.H., Silvassa,
Pin : 396 230.
2. Naineshkumar Jagdishbhai Patel
Indian Inhabitant, Aged : 36 Yrs.
At.BavisaFaliya
Umarkui Road
Near Govinda Complex
Amli, Silvassa, D.N.H.
Pin : 396 230.
3. Aben Natwarsinh Parmar
Indian Inhabitant, Aged : 46 Yrs.
House No.121,
Opp. New Era English Medium School,
At Po Naroli, Mori Faliya,
Kharadpada Road, D.N.H.
Pin : 396 230.
4. Daxaben Dhanjibhai Rohit
Indian Inhabitant, Aged : 35 Yrs.
At.VaghchhipaRohitFaliya,
Po-Agrivad,
Silvassa, D.N.H
Pin : 396 230.
5. Sangitaben Ramanbhai Rohit
Indian Inhabitant, Aged : 36 Yrs.
At.NaroliRohitFaliya, Po-Naroli,
Silvassa, D.N.H.
Pin - 396 230.
6. Snehlataben Natubhai Dhodi
Indian Inhabitant, Aged :43 Yrs.
J-2, 201, Shree Sai Complex,
OppRatan Petrol Pump, Dadra,
D.N.H. Pin :396 230.
7. Gulabbhai Chandubhai Karmodia
2 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020
Indian Inhabitant, Aged : 38 Yrs.
At.Parzai, School Pada,
Po-Kherdi, D.N.H.
Pin - 396 230
8. Bhavnaben Arvindbhai Rathod
Indian Inhabitant, Aged : 39 Yrs.
Room No.2, Type-Iii,
Block-R, Bahumali Complex,
Silvassa, D.N.H.
Pin - 396 230.
9. Bhavnaben Babubhai Patel,
Indian Inhabitant, Aged : 36 Yrs.
At Amli, Dokmardi,
Talavfaliya, Silvassa, D.N.H
Pin : 396 230.
10. Tejaben Maganbhai Patel,
Indian Inhabitant, Aged : 36 Yrs.
Bahumali Complex,
Room No.03, Block No.J, Type-III
Silvassa, D.N.H
Pin : 396 230.
11. Shardaben Amratbhai Patel
Indian Inhabitant, Aged : 37 Yrs.
At Amli, Agrivad
Po-Silvassa, D.N.H
Pin - 396 230.
12. Ritaben Kishanbhai Patel
Indian Inhabitant, Aged : 35 Yrs.
At.Posamarvarni,
Raghu Faliya,
Silvassa, D.N.H.
Pin - 396 230.
13. Ristikaben Bharat Koli
Indian Inhabitant, Aged : 37 Yrs.
House No.9/16
BhurkudFaliya,
Near Matoshree Complex,
Ring Road, Silvassa, D.N.H
Pin ; 396 230.
14. Bhartiben Ramanbhai Patel,
Indian Inhabitant, Aged : 35 Yrs.
Flat No.203, Saket Building,
Dokmardi, Silvassa, D.N.h
Pin : 396 230.
All the applicants are presently working as
Primary Teachers on contract basis
3 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020
at Silvassa. ... Applicants
in OA No.318/2020
1. Nemishkumar Chandubhai Patel
Age : 37 Yrs.
2, Abhishek Complex,
Kilavani Road, Amli,
Silvassa, D.N.H
Pin - 396 230.
2. Satishkumar Hirabhai Patel
Age : 37 Yrs.
House No.130-1, School Faliya
Kudacha, Po - Rakholi,
Silvassa, D.N.H
Pin - 396 230.
3. Pravinbhai Bablubhai Vaghmariya
Age : 40 Yrs.
At Po. UmarkuiRautpada,
Silvassa, D.N.H,
Pin - 396 230.
4. Gulabbhai Lahanubhai Shingda
Age : 40 Yrs.
At.Samarvarani, Patelpada,
Po-Silvassa, D.N.H
Pin - 396 230.
5. Hinaben Jaganbhai Patel
Age : 35 Yrs.
At.DemniNaherFaliya,
Po-Dadra, D.N.H
Pin - 396 230.
6. Mahendrakumar Navinbhai Patel
Age : 42 Yrs.
At.School Faliya,
Vaghchhipa, Po-Agrivad,
Silvassa, D.N.H
Pin - 396 230.
7. Manoj Mohanlal Patel
Age : 42 Yrs.
Near Indraprasth Residency,
BhastaFaliya,
Silvassa, D.N.H
Pin - 396 230.
4 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020
8. Radhaben Raviyabhai Patel
Age : 42 Yrs.
At-Naroli, KadFaliya,
Silvassa, D.N.H
Pin - 396 230.
9. Amitbhai Raviyabhai Patel
Age : 39 Yrs.
At-Naroli, KadFaliya,
Silvassa, D.N.H.
Pin - 396 230.
10. Dipikaben Shivram Pujari
Age : 40 Yrs.
46, Kilavani Road,
Near Yogi Hospital,
Silvassa, D.N.H
Pin - 396 230.
11. Daxaben Ramubhai Patel
Age : 37 Yrs.
At. Amli, MandirFaliya,
Silvassa, D.N.H
Pin - 396 230.
12. Smt Varshitaben Naginbhai Patel
Age : 35 Yrs.
At.Masat, Padripada,
Khanvel Road,
Silvassa, D.N.H.
Pin - 396 230.
13. Smt. Jagrutiben Chandubhai Patel
Age : 36 Yrs.
At.Amli, MandirFaliya,
Silvassa, D.N.H
Pin - 396 230.
14. Sudaxana Ramubhai Bhusara
Age : 35 Yrs.
Flat No.404, ManorathResdency,
Shree Ram-A, Saily Road,
Silvassa, D.N.H
Pin - 396 230.
15. Smt. Tammana Naginbhai Patel
Age : 36 Yrs.
At.Po. AmliAgrivad,
Silvassa, D.N.H
Pin - 396 230.
5 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020
16. Sheelaben Kasturbhai Gamit
Age : 36 Yrs.
Sai Shantidham Society,
A-1/103, BavisaFaliya,
Silvassa, D.N.H
Pin - 396 230.
17. Niketaben Ishwarbhai Patel
Age : 35 Yrs.
At.UltanFaliya,
Silvassa, D.N.H
Pin - 396 230.
18. Reenaben Rameshbhai Patel
Age : 33 Yrs.
At.Po AtholaBaripada,
Silvassa, D.N.H
Pin - 396 230.
19. Lataben Champakbhai Patel
Age : 43 Yrs.
At.Amli, 66 Kva Road,
Near Hanuman Temple,
Silvassa, D.N.h
Pin - 396 230.
20. Seema Dhirajlal Modi
Age : 40 Yrs.
Ivy-A/506, Park City,
Kilavani Road,
Silvassa, D.N.H
Pin - 396 230.
21. Bhavnaben Sureshbhai Patel
Age : Yrs.
House No.130-1, School Faliya,
Kudacha, Po-Rakholi,
Silvassa, D.N.H.
Pin - 396 230.
22. Sarojben Mohanlal Patel
Age : 47 Yrs.
At.Po Dadra, PadriFaliya,
Silvassa, D.N.H
Pin - 396 230.
All the applicants are presently working as
Primary Teachers on contract basis
at Silvassa. ... Applicants
6 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020
in OA No.319/2020
1. Sunishaben Chandubhai Patel
Age 39 Years
7, Abhishek Complex,
Kilvani Road, Amli,
D.N.H, Silvassa
Pin : 396 230.
2. Darpanaben Chhaganbhai Patel
Age 33 Years
2, Abhishek Complex,
Kilvani Road, Amli,
Silvassa, D.N.H
Pin - 396 230.
3. Vandanaben Pandubhai Thorat
Age - 36 Years
Behind Civil Court, Tokarkhada
Govt. Colony,
Silvassa, D.N.H
Pin - 396 230.
4. Chhayaben Amrutbhai Patel
Age : 35 Years
At.Ultanfaliya,
Silvassa, D.N.H
Pin : 396 230.
All the applicants are presently working as
Primary Teachers on contract basis
at Silvassa. ... Applicants
in OA No.320/2020
(By Advocate Shri A.A. Manwani)
Versus
1. Administrator,
Union Territory of Dadra
& Nagar Haveli, Silvasa - 396 230.
2. Secretary,
Education Department, Silvassa,
Dadra & Nagar Haveli,
Silvasa - 396 230.
7 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020
3. Chief Executive Officer,
District Panchayat, Silvassa,
Dadra & Nagar Haveli,
Silvasa-396 230. ... Respondents
(By Advocate Shri V.S. Masurkar)
ORDER
Per: Ravinder Kaur, Member (J)
By this common judgment, we dispose of OAs Nos.318/2020, 319/2020 & 320/2020, since they involve common question of law and facts. The lead case is taken as 318/2020.
2. Vide this OA, the applicants have claimed the following reliefs:-
8(a) That this Hon'ble Tribunal will be graciously pleased to call for the records and proceedings relating to appointment of Applicants as Assistant Primary Teachers on Contract basis and after verifying the correctness or otherwise of the same be pleased to quash and set aside impugned backdated order dated 11.10.2020.
(Shri A.A. Manwani, learned counsel for the applicants vide statement at bar that he does not press the relief claimed vide para 8(a)) 8(b) That this Hon'ble Tribunal will be further pleased to direct respondents to regularize the appointment of the applicants into the duly sanctioned vacant posts of Assistant Primary Teachers with immediate effect.
(c) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the OA, this Hon'ble Tribunal will be graciously pleased to grant stay to the operation of order dated 11.10.2020 to the effect of termination of applicants' contract on 14.11.2020.
(d) That the costs of this Application be awarded in favour of the applicant; And 8 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020
(e) That such other and further reliefs as are expedient be granted in favour of the applicant.
The facts are that the applicants were initially appointed by the District Panchayat, Department of Primary Education, Dadra & Nagar Haveli through an Advertisement dated 10.07.2006 for appointment of Assistant Teachers for Primary School on contract basis having 139 posts for Silvassa. Out of which 111 posts were for Gujarati Medium, 15 posts for Marathi Medium, 8 posts for English Medium and 5 posts for Hindi Medium. Since the applicants possessed requisite qualifications, they applied for the said post.
The applicants on being qualified in written examination and interview were appointed as Assistant Teachers for Primary Schools on contract basis.
2.1 The respondents have created 201 posts of Assistant Teachers (Primary School) for the pay scale of Rs.4500-125-7000 in the Union Territory of Dadra & Nagar Haveli (Elementary Education) after getting sanction from Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, New Delhi vide No.F.No.3-4/98-UT.1 dated 22.10.2008 9 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020 and further conveyed by the Administrator, Daman Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli on 16.12.2008 by which 201 Teachers working on contract basis were regularised following roster points looking at the medium-wise vacancies. Out of 4, 2 Assistant Teachers of Elementary Education recruited in the year 2001-02 were regularised. Out of 168 Teachers of Sarva Siksha Abhiyan (SSA), Recruitment Year 2004-05, 160 Teachers were regularised. Out of 197 contract Teachers working in Elementary Education, 183 Teachers working in SSA, 34 General and 5 OBC Teachers all recruited in the year 2006-07 were regularised as per merit and medium-wise vacancies. It is stated that in the Union Territory Administration, the SSA and Elementary Education (EE) are not distinctly separated as the schools are being run on the combined basis under District Panchayats and the teachers under SSA and EE are transferred inter- se vice versa. The applicants further state that 165 Assistant Teachers including all the applicants working on contract basis under Elementary Education are transferred to SSA on contract basis.
2.2 The applicants state that respondents have 10 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020 regularised Daily Wages Assistant Teachers of Primary School with effect from 06.09.2020. While regularising these incumbents, the basis for selection shown is Medium-wise vacancies as published in circular No.EDN/DP/EST/PST/Regular/2010/514 dated 21.03.2011 (Annex A-3), in which 67 Assistant Teachers appointed on Contract basis are regularised as per rules under the District Panchayat (Primary Education), Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa.
2.3 The applicants state that they have been working on contract basis since 2006 till date but have not been regularised. This action of the respondents is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution.
2.4 The applicants alongwith other contract Teachers have continued to work in addition to Teachers regularly appointed by the respondents. The applicants are duly qualified, diligent and able Teachers discharging their duties similar to the Teachers whose services have already been regularised. Inspite of this, the respondents are making no efforts to create sanctioned posts to absorb Assistant Primary Teachers working on contract basis.
11 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/20202.5 There is no difference between the regularly appointed Teachers and the Teachers on contract basis in terms of teaching workload, attending duties or discharging any statutory obligations or functions of a Government employee like performing of element duties. However, the Teachers employed on contract basis are getting less than 50% of the salaries and emoluments paid to the regularly appointed Teachers. The Teachers on contract basis are not entitled to DA or allowances and even retiral benefits such as Gratuity and pension. The respondents are thus exploiting these Teachers appointed on contract basis.
2.6 The applicants are appointed on short term contract basis of 3-6 months instead of appointment on contract basis for reasonable term. This frequent and erratic change in term of contractual appointment is made without any rational basis.
2.7 The applicants further state that Section 23(B), Right to Education, 2009 Model Rules, Part VI provides that salary and
allowances and conditions of service of teachers for the purpose of Section 23(3), there must be 12 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020 professional and permanent cadres of teachers, Respondents as Model employers are not implementing the Right to Education in letter and spirit by granting any guarantee for permanent employment.
2.8 The applicants state that Department of School Education & Literacy, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India by F.No.14-2/2020-IS.1 dated 08.07.2020 (Annex A-4) published Minutes of the meeting of the Project Approval Board held on 12.05.2020 to consider the Annual Work Plan & Budget (AWP & B) 20-21 of Samagra Siksha (SS) for the UT Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu running into 129 pages, Hon'ble Tribunal's reference is invited on page 44, on which relevant para 11 notes Support for salary of Teachers:
Sanctioned post, working and vacancies for Dadra Nagar & Haveli (Elementary) Sanctioned Posts under SS 946, Working posts 831 Vacancies of posts 115 Thus, this report also clearly reflects that there are sanctioned posts against which 13 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020 applicants can be regularised. Further, DoPT OM No.49014/7/2020-Estt (C) dated 07.10.2020 on the subject of regularisation of qualified workers appointed against sanctioned posts-Uma Devi Judgment - facts/clarification - reg has reiterated that para 44 of the aforesaid judgment directed that the UOI, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as one time measure the services of such irregularly appointed workers who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts.
2.9 The applicants further state that in the Apex Court judgment dated 10.04.2006, in the case of Umadevi, Hon'ble Court has in para 2 very clearly pointed out that the filing of vacancies cannot be done in a haphazard manner based on patronage or other considerations. The respondents have not been following any set parameters and have been discriminating against the applicants while instructing them to teach in Schools of different media and while regularising the incumbents by deciding to absorb/appoint them based on medium in which they are recruited.
2.10 The applicants filed 14 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020 representations dated 22.10.2019 and 30.10.2020 with the respondents for their regularisation.
However, the same have not been responded to. 2.11 The OA No.159/2020 was filed for regularisation by the Teachers/applicants therein who were also recruited in the year 2006 on contract basis which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 21.02.2020 directing the respondents to consider the representation of the applicants therein including similarly placed persons but no action was taken by the respondents.
2.12 The applicants further state that since sanctioned posts are available, the applicants can be regularised in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi(supra) They term the action of the respondents as discriminatory and against the principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
3. The respondents in their reply have claimed that the applicants were engaged under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan(SSA), which is a Centrally Sponsored Scheme(CSS) of M/o Education(formally MHRD), GOI and they are continuing as such on the 15 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020 short term contract basis. The posts under the SSA scheme are contractual in nature and their continuation is subject to renewal from time to time. Thus the applicants are not engaged or working on regular sanctioned posts, therefore, they are not entitled for regularization. It is contended that the nature of service being contractual had already been mentioned in the relevant advertisement, initial order for their engagement as well as contract renewal orders issued from time to time. The respondents have placed on record the advertisement dated 10.07.2006 as Annex R-8. They have further placed on record the OM dated 29.06.2007 whereby 78 candidates were appointed as Asst. Teachers, Primary School(English/Gujarati Teachers) under elementary education on daily wages/contract basis for a period of 89 days w.e.f. 02.07.2007. The appointing authority ie. The District Panchayat vide this OM reserved the right to terminate the service of any candidate at any point of time. It is stated that the respondents have placed on record the initial order of engagement and contract renewal orders as Annex R-5(colly) and R-6(colly).R-5 is an appointment 16 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020 order of Patel Sunisha Chandubhai ie. Applicant no. 1 in OA No. 320/2020 dated 23.08.2012, whereas R-6 is an order dated 02.06.2019, renewing the contract of the Primary/Upper Primary School teachers on contact under SSA for a further period of 6 months from 03.05.2019 to 31.10.2019 with a break of 2 days ie. 01.05.2019 and 02.05.2019.
3.1 The respondents contend that the initial appointment as well as the contact renewal orders issued from time to time contain the following clauses:
1. SSA, Union Territory Mission Authority reserves the right to terminate the services at any time.
2. He/she will have no right to claim for regular appointment for the post in future.
These terms and conditions have been accepted by the applicants from time to time. The respondents have placed on record Annex R-7 ie. the acceptance of the offer of appointment as Assistant Teachers Upper Primary School by the applicant no. 1 in OA No. 320/2020.The respective contract of the applicants is renewed only on their willingness.
17 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/20203.2 As per the advertisement, the applications from the local eligible candidates were invited for the posts of teachers of primary school on contract basis. Therein, it was specifically mentioned that the recruitment of these primary school teachers will not confer any right for regular appointment and this appointment may be terminated at any time without prior notice. The respondents contend that the aforesaid advertisement has not been placed on record by the applicant, therefore, they are guilty of suppression of material facts and on this ground itself the OA should be dismissed as a litigant who approaches the Court is bound to produce all the documents which are relevant to the litigation. The teachers are being engaged and continued on contractual posts of a Centrally Sponsored Scheme ie. SSA. Even though the regular Primary/Upper Primary Teachers, and Contractual Teachers under the Directorate of Education and Contractual Teachers under SSA are being engaged by Elementary Section of the department, the nature of service of the applicants(contractually engaged teachers) differs from the nature of service of the regular 18 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020 teachers. As in the advertisement, it is clearly mentioned that the posts are to be filled up purely on contractual basis.
3.3 The District Panchayat is not an authority to appoint or regularize the teachers. The Administrator is the appointing authority for the post of Primary/Upper Primary School Teachers being Group 'B'(NG) posts. The respondents refer to OA No. 88/2014 filed by the similarly situated contractual teachers working under SSA. The OA was disposed of vide order dated 14.02.2020 directing the applicants therein to submit representation to the Administrator and the Administrator was directed to pass reasoned and speaking order on the representation. Further, the present applicants have also submitted representation dated 25.09.2020 and the same is under process for disposal. The respondents reiterate that since all the applicants have been engaged and continued on contractual basis, that too on contractual posts sanctioned under Central Sponsored Scheme ie. Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan, now known as Samagra Shiksha, the contractual nature of service has been communicated not only in the initial advertisement but also in the renewal of 19 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020 contract from time to time by giving technical break. The applicants had agreed to the terms and conditions of their contract before signing the same and appeared in the interviews knowing very well those terms and conditions of the service. The applicants had an option to walk out of the contract giving one month notice, if they ever felt that the department was exploiting them. The applicants have been continuing in the education department willingly.
3.4 Merely working on contractual basis for number of years does not give them right to regularization, one has to undergo selection process for regular posts in any Govt Department. 3.5 The contractual service is a short gap arrangement and hence, the contract on every arrangement has been renewed by giving technical break between the two contractual periods.
4. We have heard arguments and have gone through the material available on record including the case law cited.
5. As per the respondents, all the applicants in these OAs have been engaged on short term contract under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan/Samagra Shiksha, which is a CSS of 20 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020 Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt of India. The respondents had made us available the documents on framework for implementation of SSA/SS. As per the same, the CSS SSA was started from 2000-2001 for universal elementary education in the country. Subsequently Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan was also started in 2009 for Secondary School Education. Then there was another scheme of teachers education. Subsequently since 2018 all these three Schemes have been merged into Samagra Shiksha i.e. integrated scheme for school education with pre-school, primary, upper primary, secondary and higher secondary levels, as per requirement under Right to Education Act, 2009 and sustainable development goals for education as agreed by the member Countries of the United Nations. The SSA/SS for UT Administration is 100% funded by the Government of India but this assistance is not available under the scheme for filling up State/UT Government vacancies of teachers. There is provision for performance indicators for teachers (PINDICS), for their recruitment, evaluation, monitoring and supervision of performance and learning output of teachers (item 7.14 REMS of SSA framework and item 5.8 of SS framework). The recruitment of teachers is to be on annual basis as per PTR (Pupil Teacher Ratio) norms in the schools. There is also provision 21 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020 of deployment and redeployment of teachers to meet the PTR norms.
5.1 The applicants in the present case have not denied that their appointment is under SSA, now known as Samagra Shiksha(SS). It is also not disputed that all the applicants have been engaged and continued on short term contract basis under the above referred project.
The respondents have brought out that SSA is a Centrally Sponsored Scheme of M/o Education. The posts of Asst Teachers, Primary Schools is contractual in nature. Their continuation is subject to renewal from time to time. Further, the applicants are not engaged on regular sanctioned posts. Shri Masurkar has further drawn our attention to the advertisement dated 10.07.2006 issued under the Project SSA which clearly finds mentions that the applications from local eligible candidates were invited for 139 posts of Asst Teachers for primary schools on contract basis. It clearly finds mention that recruitment of teachers under the advertisement will not confer any right for regular appointment. Further, their appointment may be terminated at any point of time without prior notice.
22 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/20205.2 We have perused OM dated 29.06.2007. As per the same 831 Asst Teachers, Primary School were appointed on daily wages/contract basis in pursuance to the advertisement dated 10.07.2006 referred to above. The engagement of the teachers was subject to the following terms and conditions:
"(1) The engagement is purely on contractual basis for the period from 03.07.2020 to 31.08.2020 with a break of 2 days ie. 01.07.2020 or 02.07.2020 or is for till regular appointment to the post is done, whichever is earlier. (2) They shall have no right to regular appointment on the post in future either in the Union Territory Administration or in the SS, Dadra & Nagar Haveli. (3) Their services will be under the direct control of the State Project Director, Samagra Shiksha, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu (4) The State Project Director(SS)/UT Administration of Dadra and Nagar Haveli has to right to end the Contract without any prior notice. "
The above documents leave no doubt in our mind that the appointments of all these teachers are on contractual basis and their services are directly under the control of State Project Director, Samagra Shiksha, Dadar & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu. It further finds mention that they shall have no right for regular appointment on the posts in future. The right to end the contract of these teachers without prior notice stands vested with the State Project Director. The advertisement dated 10.07.2006 and the OM dated 29.06.2007 containing the above noted terms 23 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020 and conditions admittedly have never been challenged by the applicants. They accepted all the terms and conditions of their appointment out of their free will. OM dated 12.03.2007 is an offer of appointment to one of the teachers which also clearly finds mention of the terms and conditions of the appointment referred to above. The applicants have not denied that they had voluntarily accepted the contractual appointment and its renewal from time to time.
5.3 Shri Masurkar has brought to our notice that there are total 1254 sanctioned posts for Primary and Upper Primary Teachers in the UT against the requirement of total 2101 teachers for various elementary schools of the Union Territory. Thus the total requirement of Primary/Upper Primary School Teachers exceeds the regular sanctioned posts. This is the reason the applicants and several other teachers are being engaged and continued on contractual posts under the Samagra Shiksha as there are no sanctioned posts available. It is for this reason in the advertisement also, it is mentioned that the Asst Teachers are to be engaged purely on contractual basis.
24 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/20205.4 Shri Masurkar has vehemently argued that merely for the reason that the applicants are appointed on contractual basis from time to time for a number of years, it does not bestow any right upon them to seek regularization. Further, in order to get regular appointment, one has to undergo selection process for regular posts under any department and there are no regular/sanctioned posts available against which the applicants can be regularized. He further argues that their initial appointment or renewal from time to time was never against the sanctioned posts. The contractual service is a short gap arrangement. Generally, the contract is renewed for 11 months but when the contractual services were/are not required, at that time, the contract had/has been renewed for a shorter period on the basis of approval of the contractual posts by MoE under SSA. He has further brought to our notice that the Hon'ble Apex Court in its various judgments has held that the recruitment in the Govt shall be strictly in accordance with law and it shall be by public advertisement.
5.5 On perusal of the entire record and 25 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020 considering the submissions of the parties, we are of the opinion that the applicants and other contractually appointed teachers were appointed under CSS SSA, their contract has been renewed from time to time and they were never appointed on regular sanctioned posts. When the applicants and other similarly situated contractual teachers were engaged initially, their terms of engagement were clearly mentioned in the advertisements issued fro time to time which were accepted by them unconditionally and voluntarily. Even the concerned authority has reserved the right to terminate their services at any time and thus in our considered opinion, they have no right to claim regularization on these posts, particularly in view of the fact that their initial or subsequent appointment even on contractual basis was not against the sanctioned posts. Shri Masurkar has already brought to our notice that due to requirement of teachers in sanctioned posts the applicants have been engaged and continued on contractual basis and they were never given any assurance for regularization. 5.6 It is not the case of the applicants that when they were given appointments 26 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020 on short term contract basis, at that time, there were sanctioned posts available. They have themselves stated in OA that there are no sanctioned posts. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umadevi that since the applicants are working on contract basis for a substantial period, they are entitled to be regularized. He has also contended that several identically placed teachers have already been regularized by the respondents.
5.7 The respondents on the other hand have relied upon the following judgments in support of their case:
1. Official Liquidator vs Dayanand and Ors reported in (2008) 10 SCC 1
2. Mohd Asif 7 Ors vs S/o Bihar reported in 2011 (1) SLJ (SC) 134
3. State of Rajasthan vs Dayalal & Ors (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 40
4. 2002 (3) SLJ(Delhi High Court) 295 Chattar Singh vs IGNOU
5. 2004 SCC(L&S) 14 Ram Singh vs UT of Chandigarh
6. 2005(1) SLR (SC) 39 Mahendra Jain vs Indore Dev. Authority
7. 2005(5) SLR(Guwahati) 254 Pritish ranjan Roy vs S/o Tripura
8. 2006 SCC(L&S) 422 M P Housing Board vs Manoj Srivastava
9. (2006) SCC (L&S) 753 Secretary, State of Karnataka vs umadevi & Ors
10. (2006) 5 SCC 493 National Fertilizers Limited & Ors. Vs. Somvir Singh
11. (2006) 4 SCC 1 Umadevi(3) vs. UOI
12. 2006 SCC(L&S) 1745 Surendra Prasad Tiwari vs UPRKU
13. (2009) 4 SCC 342 State of Karnataka vs G V Chandrashekar
14. (2010) 1 SCC L&S 385 UOI vs Kartick Chandra Mondal
15. (2013) 12 SCC 582 UOI & Ors. vs. G. R. Rama Krishna & Anr
16. (2014) 5 SCC 300 Nand Kumar vs State of Bihar 7 Ors.
17. (2014) 16 SCC 187 Ranjan Kumar & Ors. vs State of Bihar & 27 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020 Ors.
18. (2014) 4 SCC 769 Secretary to Govt School Education Department, Chennai vs R. Govindswamy & Ors.
19. (2015) 11 SCC 493 Pradeep Kumar Rai & Ors. vs Dinesh Kumar Pandey & Ors.
20. (2015) 14 SCC 382 Surendra Kumar vs. Greater Noida & Ors.
5.8 We have carefully gone through all the judgments referred to above, these judgments, more or less have followed the principle laid down by the Constitution Bench judgment of Honble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi(supra).
5.9 The following observations made in the case of Umadevi(supra) and the relevant paras of the same are reproduced herein below:-
2. A sovereign government, considering the economic situation in the country and the work to be got done, is not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on daily wages. Going by a law newly enacted, The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, the object is to give employment to at least one member of a family for hundred days in an year, on paying wages as fixed under that Act. But, a regular process of recruitment or appointment has to be resorted to, when regular vacancies in posts, at a particular point of time, are to be filled up and the filling up of those vacancies cannot be done in a haphazard manner or based on patronage or other considerations. Regular appointment must be the rule.
3. But, sometimes this process is not adhered to and the Constitutional scheme of public employment is by-passed. The Union, the States, their departments and instrumentalities have resorted to irregular appointments, especially in the lower rungs of the service, without reference to the duty to ensure a proper appointment procedure through the Public Service Commission or otherwise as per the rules adopted and to permit these irregular appointees or those appointed on contract or on daily wages, to continue year after year, thus, keeping out those who are qualified to apply for the post concerned and depriving them of an opportunity to compete for the post. It has also led to persons who get employed, without the following of a regular procedure or even through the backdoor or on daily wages, approaching Courts, 28 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020 seeking directions to make them permanent in their posts and to prevent regular recruitment to the concerned posts. Courts have not always kept the legal aspects in mind and have occasionally even stayed the regular process of employment being set in motion and in some cases, even directed that these illegal, irregular or improper entrants be absorbed into service. A class of employment which can only be called 'litigious employment', has risen like a phoenix seriously impairing the constitutional scheme. Such orders are passed apparently in exercise of the wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Whether the wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution is intended to be used for a purpose certain to defeat the concept of social justice and equal opportunity for all, subject to affirmative action in the matter of public employment as recognized by our Constitution, has to be seriously pondered over. It is time, that Courts desist from issuing orders preventing regular selection or recruitment at the instance of such persons and from issuing directions for continuance of those who have not secured regular appointments as per procedure established. The passing of orders for continuance, tends to defeat the very Constitutional scheme of public employment. It has to be emphasized that this is not the role envisaged for High Courts in the scheme of things and their wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not intended to be used for the purpose of perpetuating illegalities, irregularities or improprieties or for scuttling the whole scheme of public employment. Its role as the sentinel and as the guardian of equal rights protection should not be forgotten.
4. This Court has also on occasions issued directions which could not be said to be consistent with the Constitutional scheme of public employment. Such directions are issued presumably on the basis of equitable considerations or individualization of justice.
The question arises, equity to whom? Equity for the handful of people who have approached the Court with a claim, or equity for the teeming millions of this country seeking employment and seeking a fair opportunity for competing for employment? When one side of the coin is considered, the other side of the coin, has also to be considered and the way open to any court of law or justice, is to adhere to the law as laid down by the Constitution and not to make directions, which at times, even if do not run counter to the Constitutional scheme, certainly tend to water down the Constitutional requirements. It is this conflict that is reflected in these cases referred to the Constitution Bench.
10. In addition to the equality clause represented by Article 14 of the Constitution, Article 16 has specifically provided for equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Buttressing these fundamental rights, Article 309 provides that subject to the provisions of the Constitution, Acts of the legislature may regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and 29 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020 posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State. In view of the interpretation placed on Article 12 of the Constitution by this Court, obviously, these principles also govern the instrumentalities that come within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution. With a view to make the procedure for selection fair, the Constitution by Article 315 has also created a Public Service Commission for the Union and Public Service Commissions for the States. Article 320 deals with the functions of Public Service Commissions and mandates consultation with the Commission on all matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and for civil posts and other related matters. As a part of the affirmative action recognized by Article 16 of the Constitution, Article 335 provides for special consideration in the matter of claims of the members of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes for employment. The States have made Acts, Rules or Regulations for implementing the above constitutional guarantees and any recruitment to the service in the State or in the Union is governed by such Acts, Rules and Regulations. The Constitution does not envisage any employment outside this constitutional scheme and without following the requirements set down therein.
14. ..................................If the appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or if it is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution, illegality cannot be regularized.
"Ratification or regularization is possible of an act which is within the power and province of the authority, but there has been some non- compliance with procedure or manner which does not go to the root of the appointment. Regularization cannot be said to be a mode of recruitment. To accede to such a proposition would be to introduce a new head of appointment in defiance of rules or it may have the effect of setting at naught the rules."
In B.N. Nagarajan & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. [(1979) 3 SCR 937], this court clearly held that the words "regular" or "regularization" do not connote permanence and cannot be construed so as to convey an idea of the nature of tenure of appointments. They are terms calculated to condone any procedural irregularities and are meant to cure only such defects as are attributable to methodology followed in making the appointments. This court emphasized that when rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India are in force, no regularization is permissible in exercise of the executive powers of the Government under Article 162 of the Constitution in contravention of the rules. These decisions and the principles recognized therein have not been dissented to by this Court and on principle, we see no reason not to accept the proposition as enunciated in the above decisions. We have, therefore, to keep this distinction in mind and proceed on the basis that only something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularized and that it alone can be regularized and granting permanence of employment is a totally different concept and cannot be equated with regularization. 30 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020
20. ..............................................
With respect, why should the State be allowed to depart from the normal rule and indulge in temporary employment in permanent posts? This Court, in our view, is bound to insist on the State making regular and proper recruitments and is bound not to encourage or shut its eyes to the persistent transgression of the rules of regular recruitment. The direction to make permanent -- the distinction between regularization and making permanent, was not emphasized here -- can only encourage the State, the model employer, to flout its own rules and would confer undue benefits on a few at the cost of many waiting to compete. With respect, the direction made in paragraph 50 of Piara Singh (supra) are to some extent inconsistent with the conclusion in paragraph 45 therein. With great respect, it appears to us that the last of the directions clearly runs counter to the constitutional scheme of employment recognized in the earlier part of the decision. Really, it cannot be said that this decision has laid down the law that all ad hoc, temporary or casual employees engaged without following the regular recruitment procedure should be made permanent.
22. In Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. Vs. Pushpa Srivastava (Smt.) (1992 (3) SCR 712), this Court held that since the appointment was on purely contractual and ad hoc basis on consolidated pay for a fixed period and terminable without notice, when the appointment came to an end by efflux of time, the appointee had no right to continue in the post and to claim regularization in service in the absence of any rule providing for regularization after the period of service. A limited relief of directing that the appointee be permitted on sympathetic consideration to be continued in service till the end of the concerned calendar year was issued. This Court noticed that when the appointment was purely on ad hoc and contractual basis for a limited period, on the expiry of the period, the right to remain in the post came to an end. This Court stated that the view they were taking was the only view possible and set aside the judgment of the High Court which had given relief to the appointee.
25. ..................................................
" In this connection it is pertinent to note that question of regularization in any service including any government service may arise in two contingencies. Firstly, if on any available clear vacancies which are of a long duration appointments are made on ad hoc basis or daily-wage basis by a competent authority and are continued from time to time and if it is found that the incumbents concerned have continued to be employed for a long period of time with or without any artificial breaks, and their services are otherwise required by the institution which employs them, a time may come in the service career of such employees who are continued on ad hoc basis for a given substantial length of time to regularize them so that the employees concerned can give their best by being assured security of tenure. But this would require one precondition that the initial entry of such an employee must be made against an available sanctioned vacancy by following the rules and regulations governing such entry. The second type of situation in which the question of regularization may arise would be when the initial entry 31 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020 of the employee against an available vacancy is found to have suffered from some flaw in the procedural exercise though the person appointing is competent to effect such initial recruitment and has otherwise followed due procedure for such recruitment. A need may then arise in the light of the exigency of administrative requirement for waiving such irregularity in the initial appointment by a competent authority and the irregular initial appointment may be regularized and security of tenure may be made available to the incumbent concerned. But even in such a case the initial entry must not be found to be totally illegal or in blatant disregard of all the established rules and regulations governing such recruitment."
26. It is not necessary to notice all the decisions of this Court on this aspect. By and large what emerges is that regular recruitment should be insisted upon, only in a contingency an ad hoc appointment can be made in a permanent vacancy, but the same should soon be followed by a regular recruitment and that appointments to non-available posts should not be taken note of for regularization. The cases directing regularization have mainly proceeded on the basis that having permitted the employee to work for some period, he should be absorbed, without really laying down any law to that effect, after discussing the constitutional scheme for public employment.
34. ........................................................ Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a Court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. High Courts acting under Article 226of the Constitution of India, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because, an employee had continued under cover of an order of Court, which we have described as 32 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020 'litigious employment' in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of paying an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates.
36. While directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be regularized or made permanent, courts are swayed by the fact that the concerned person has worked for some time and in some cases for a considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with eyes open. It may be true that he is not in a position to bargain -- not at arms length
-- since he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible. If the court were to void a contractual employment of this nature on the ground that the parties were not having equal bargaining power, that too would not enable the court to grant any relief to that employee. A total embargo on such casual or temporary employment is not possible, given the exigencies of administration and if imposed, would only mean that some people who at least get employment temporarily, contractually or casually, would not be getting even that employment when securing of such employment brings at least some succor to them. After all, innumerable citizens of our vast country are in search of employment and one is not compelled to accept a casual or temporary employment if one is not inclined to go in for such an employment. It is in that context that one has to proceed on the basis that the employment was accepted fully knowing the nature of it and the consequences flowing from it. In other words, even while accepting the employment, the person concerned knows the nature of his employment. It is not an appointment to a post in the real sense of the term. The claim acquired by him in the post in which he is temporarily employed or the interest in that post cannot be considered to be of such a magnitude as to enable the giving up of the procedure established, for making regular appointments to available posts in the services of the State. The argument that since one has been working for some time in the post, it will not be just to discontinue him, even though he was aware of the nature of the employment when he first took it up, is not one that would enable the jettisoning of the procedure established by law for public employment and would have to fail when tested on the touchstone of constitutionality and equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 33 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020
44. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in STATE OF MYSORE Vs. S.V. NARAYANAPPA [1967 (1) S.C.R. 128], R.N. NANJUNDAPPA Vs T. THIMMIAH & ANR. [(1972) 2 S.C.R. 799] , and B.N. NAGARAJAN (supra), and referred to in paragraph 14 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 courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization 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 above referred 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 regularize 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 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 regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. 5.10 The issue in the present case is whether the posts on which the applicants were appointed were advertised and whether these were regular posts for regular/permanent appointment. If the posts were regular posts and the applicants were selected as per due process, only then they can have a valid claim for regularization. However, if the advertisement was only for short term contract, then the applicants cannot seek regularization of their service. The advertisement placed on record clearly shows that the applications from local eligible candidates were invited for the posts of Asst Teachers on 34 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020 contract basis. As already discussed above, even the offer of appointment and appointment orders issued to the applicants show that they were appointed on daily wages/contract basis having no right to claim for regular appointment in future and the appointing authority reserved the right to terminate the service at any point of time. The terms and conditions of appointment have already been discussed above. Before the applicants can get the benefit of the ratio of various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, that since they worked continuously, they are entitled to be regularized, it is necessary that the posts should have been advertised for regular/permanent appointment ie. existing vacancies of regular/permanent posts. Since the posts advertised were not for appointment on permanent and regular basis, the applicants in our opinion cannot claim regularization of their contractual appointments.
5.11 If advertisement to a post is for a contratual period, persons who are appointed to such posts cannot seek regularization. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umadevi(3) (supra) made it abundently clear that before 35 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020 appointment of persons on a regular/permanent basis, there have to exist recruitment rules or specific eligibility criteria laid down for the appointments, there must be sanctioned posts, there must be vacancies of the sanctioned posts and finally there must be issued advertisements for filling up the posts, not as temporary/contractual posts but as permanent posts, so that there should be a level playing field of competition with respect to prospective appointees.
5.12 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umadevi(supra) has laid down the following ratios:-
"(I) The questions to be asked before regularization are:-
(a)(i)Was there a sanctioned post (court cannot order creation of posts because finances of the state may go haywire), (ii) is there a vacancy, (iii) are the persons qualified persons and (iv) are the appointments through regular recruitment process of
(b) A court can condone an irregularity in the appointment procedure only if the irregularity does not go to the root of the matter.
(II) For sanctioned posts having vacancies, such posts have to be filled by regular recruitment process of prescribed procedure otherwise, the constitutional mandate flowing from Articles 14, 16, 309, 315, 320 etc is violated.
(III) In case of existence of necessary circumstances the government has a right to appoint contract employees or casual labour or employees for a project, but, such persons form a class in themselves and they cannot claim equality(except possibly for equal pay for equal work) with regular employees who form a separate class. Such 36 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020 temporary employees cannot claim legitimate expectation of absorption/regularization as they knew when they were appointed that they were temporary inasmuch as the government did not give and nor could have given an assurance of regularization without the regular recruitment process being followed. Such irregularly appointed persons cannot claim to be regularized alleging violation of Article
21. Also the equity in favour of the millions who await public employment through the regular recruitment process outweighs the equity in favour of the limited number of irregularly appointed persons who claim regularization.
(IV) Once there are vacancies in sanctioned posts such vacancies cannot be filled in except without regular recruitment process, and thus neither the court nor the executive can frame a scheme to absorb or regularize persons appointed to such posts without following the regular recruitment process.
(V) At the instance of persons irregularly appointed the process of regular recruitment shall not be stopped. Courts should not pass interim orders to continue employment of such irregularly appointed persons because the same will result in stoppage of recruitment through regular appointment procedure.
(VI) If there are sanctioned posts with vacancies, and qualified persons were appointed without a regular recruitment process, then, such persons who when the judgment of Uma Devi is passed have worked for over 10 years without court orders, such persons be regularized under schemes to be framed by the concerned organization. (VII)The aforesaid law which applies to the Union and the States will also apply to all instrumentalities of the State governed by Article 12 of the Constitution". 5.13 In the present case, it is observed that it is only on account of exigencies that the applicants were appointed as short-term contract employees and they were well aware of their such status at the time of their appointments which is crystal clear from the advertisement issued and the appointment letters. The applicants have 37 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020 failed to bring any material on record that there were sanctioned posts when they had been appointed on contract basis. Thus, the posts which are sanctioned at any time later on cannot be deemed to have been sanctioned as on the date of their initial appointment. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umadevi(Supra), if the appointment is a contractual appointment, it comes to an end at the end of the contract. It is also clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of Selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. 5.14 The appointment of the applicants on short term contract basis cannot be termed to have been made by a due process of Selection as envisaged by the relevant rules, thus, they cannot claim the right to regularization. To seek regularization of appointment, the recruitment itself should have been done for regular, sanctioned permanent posts and in terms of 38 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020 constitutional scheme. The applicants at the time of their appointment on contractual basis were aware of the nature of their appointment and had accepted the same with open eyes. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umadevi(supra), it may be true that at the relevant time, the applicants were searching for employment to earn their livelihood and were not in a position to bargain, thus accepted the appointment on contractual basis. But merely for this reason, we cannot direct the respondents to regularize their service. Once the applicants have accepted the employment on contractual basis, fully knowing the nature of it, they have to bear the consequences of the same. These applicants have no fundamental right to claim regularization as they cannot be said to be holders of posts. They have not been able to establish a legal right to be regularized to the post to which they are appointed on contract basis as they have never been appointed in terms of relevant rules or in adherence to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The applicants have failed to make out a case in their favour. In view of the above discussion, all the present 39 OA Nos.318/2020 to 320/2020 original applications are devoid of any merits and are thus dismissed. No orders as to costs.
(Ravinder Kaur) (Dr. Bhagwan Sahai) Member (J) Member (A) ma.