Gujarat High Court
Parmar Ramsinh Nathabhai vs State Of Gujarat on 23 January, 2019
Author: A.J. Shastri
Bench: A.J. Shastri
C/SCA/9458/2017 IA ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 of 2018
IN
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9458 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6 of 2018
IN
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9458 of 2017
=========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT Versus PARMAR RAMSINH NATHABHAI ========================================================= Appearance: (Civil Application No. 1 of 2018) MS SANGEETA VISHEN, AGP for the PETITIONER(s) No. NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the PETITIONER(s) No. A S TIMBALIA for the RESPONDENT(s) No. MR MANISH J PATEL for the RESPONDENT(s) No. MR NIRAV C SANGHAVI for the RESPONDENT(s) No. MR YATIN OZA, LD. SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR. MN MARFATIA for the RESPONDENT(s) No. PETITION WITHDRAWN/DISMISSED for the RESPONDENT(s) No. Appearance: (Civil Application No. 6 of 2018) MR SN SHELAT, LD. SENIOR ADVOCATE with MRS VD NANAVATI for the PETITIONER(s) No. NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the PETITIONER(s) No. PETITION WITHDRAWN/DISMISSED MR MANISH J PATEL for the RESPONDENT(s) No. MR NIRAV C SANGHAVI for the RESPONDENT(s) No. MR YATIN OZA, LD. SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR. MN MARFATIA for the RESPONDENT(s) No. A S TIMBALIA for the RESPONDENT(s) No. ========================================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. SHASTRI Date : 23/01/2019 IA COMMON ORDER
1. Both these civil applications are filed for the purpose of vacating the interim relief which has been granted in the main petition vide Page 1 of 19 C/SCA/9458/2017 IA ORDER order dated 05.05.2017. Civil Application No.1 of 2018 is filed by the State authority and the Commissioner of the Higher Education whereas Civil Application No. 6 of 2018 is filed by several applicants, but since the aim of both these applications is to vacate the interim relief which has been operative in the main proceedings, both the civil applications are taken up for hearing jointly with the concurrence of both the sides represented by the respective counsel.
2. Since the common question is arising in these Civil Applications, the Court upon request of both the sides deemed it proper to deal with and dispose of these Civil Applications by the present order.
3. The background of fact leading to the filing of these Civil Applications is that the original petitioners have been appointed as 'Vyakhayata Sahayak' on contractual basis for a period of 11 months or till the regularly selected candidates from GPSC are available. So far as Civil Application 1 of 2018 is concerned, it has been averred that the original petitioners have made an attempt to mislead the Court by suppressing material fact and out of 121 petitioners, total 61 petitioners have earlier filed Special Civil Application No. 4524 of 2016 and allied matters seeking some what similar reliefs wherein the said petitions came to be disposed of vide order dated 23.11.2016 by observing that the services of the petitioners shall not be terminated till the regularly recruited and selected candidates are available from the GPSC. It is the case of the applicants that both the applicants being the State authorities have submitted that all the original petitioners were conscious about their right to continue till the regularly selected candidates come and as such the initial relief which has been granted on 05.05.2017 in terms of para 6 (F) and (G) now deserve to be vacated in view of the fact that several regularly selected candidates are now available and another reason which has been Page 2 of 19 C/SCA/9458/2017 IA ORDER assigned is that certain regular candidates can be transferred from their present place to their place of choice and further the State authorities are also desirous to reduce the number of posts on account of not having enough work load and since the original petitioners are having only limited right of they being contractual employees, no legal right to continue. Resultantly, the interim relief be vacated.
3.1. The sum and substance of the stand of the applicants of Civil Application No. 1 of 2018 is that account of multifarious reasons the interim relief be vacated. The facts to be taken note of is that the original interim relief which has been granted is on 05.05.2017 wherein on that very date, the parties were directed to complete the pleadings before the returnable date i.e. 02.08.2017. The said order reads as under : "Notice returnable on 02.08.2017.
Interim relief in terms of para 6(F) and (G) Parties shall complete pleadings before returnable date. Direct Service is permitted."
3.2. It appears that despite the aforesaid order, the present Civil Application appears to have been filed only on 09.07.2018 and that too for various reasons as stated above.
4. So far as Civil Application No. 6 of 2018 is concerned, this has been filed by the several applicants stated to have been selected and found place in the merit list which was published on 24.05.2018 and the appointment orders also stated to have been issued and only posting is to be given. This application appears to have been submitted and affirmed on 04.09.2018 for vacating the interim relief dated 05.05.2017. Hence, present Civil Application appears to have been filed almost after a period of three and half months. This Civil Application contains a brief reason that if the protection granted to Page 3 of 19 C/SCA/9458/2017 IA ORDER the petitioner is lifted, then applicants can get the posting. With this background, the aforesaid two civil applications have been submitted one by the State authority and another by the appointed candidates.
5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. S.N. Shelat appearing with Ms. V.D. Nanavati, learned advocate for the applicants of Civil Application No. 6 of 2018 has contended that the original petitioners have absolutely no legal right to continue to hold the post of their employment in view of the fact that they were merely contractual employees and their services have been restricted till the regularly selected candidates are available and now these applicants are regularly selected candidates not only appointed but awaiting posting orders. Hence, the interim relief which has been granted on 05.05.2017 be vacated forthwith so as to enable the applicants to resume their posting. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shelat has contended that the reliefs which have been prayed are almost identical to that of earlier petitions which came to be disposed of and in view of the observations made in the said decision there is no right available with the petitioners to hold the order of interim relief any further. It has been submitted that there is no prima facie no case in favour of the petitioner nor any legal right has flown out of their employment and the contract has already come to an end and this being the position, the order dated 05.05.2017 be vacated forthwith. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shelat has submitted that the balance of convenience is also not in favour of the original petitioners as the petitioners while securing the employment from day one were knowing about their status in the employment and were conscious about the fact that whenever the regular candidates come, their services would come to an end automatically. It has been submitted that this very issue at length had been dealt with by the two Division Benches and, therefore, considering the law laid down on this issue, the interim relief deserves to be vacated forthwith. For the purpose of Page 4 of 19 C/SCA/9458/2017 IA ORDER substantiating the contentions, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shelat has submitted and drawn attention of this Court to the following decisions to make out a case for vacating the interim relief.
1. In the case of K. D. Vohra v. Kamleshbhai Gobarbhai Patel reported in 2003 (2) GLR 1343.
2. In the case of Pranav Ganeshbhai Chakravarty v. State of Gujarat & Ors. rendered in Special Civil Application No. 6220 of 1997 dated 06.02.2007.
3. In the case of State of Maharashtra & Ors., v. Anita & Anr. etc., reported in 2016 (8) SCC 293 [: 2016 Law Suit (SC) 695].
4. In the case of Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna & Ors., v, M/s. Green Rubber Industries & Ors., reported in AIR 1990 SC 699.
5.1. Learned Senior Advocate relying upon the aforesaid decisions has vehemently contended that in absence of any legal right in the main petition, the petition is not entertainable. Hence, the interim relief which has been operative from 05.05.2017 be vacated with immediate effect. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shelat has further submitted that it is the domain of the authority to recruit a person and pursuant to that when the applicants are already regularly selected through a valid process, cannot be allowed to wait for the posting only since the appointment orders are already given. Thus the contractual appointment of the original petitioners cannot be misconstrued in the context of the main relief which has been sought for. Therefore, in absence of any legal right, in absence of any prima facie case or balance of convenience, or irreparable loss, no interim relief be allowed to continue. Hence, requested the Court to grant the relief as prayed for in this Civil Application.
6. So far as the case in Civil Application No.1 of 2018 is concerned, Page 5 of 19 C/SCA/9458/2017 IA ORDER it has been submitted by learned AGP Ms. Sangeeta Vishen appearing on behalf of the State authority that there is no right vested in favour of the original petitioners to stick to the post as they were completely aware from the day one about their tenure of employment and, therefore, with open eyes having accepted the terms of the contractual employment, now under the guise of smart play, the original petitioners cannot insists upon to continue the interim relief. It has been submitted that not only the State authorities want to give posting to the applicants of Civil Application No. 6 of 2018 as are appointed, but the State authorities are also inclined to consider the request of the transfer of some of the employees of their choice and also the authority wants to see that the post can be reduced to some extent as there is no availability of work and, therefore, these are the issues of public importance and the continuance of the interim relief would become hindrance to the authority to carry out such objective. It has been submitted that the original petitioners have no right at all to stick to the post and the ground reality, the relief which has been prayed for is not possible to be considered and continue any further. It is the settled position of law that if the employee is accepting the employment on a particular terms of his employment, then he cannot be allowed to act counter to the same as is bound by the terms of his own employment and these terms which are undisputedly attached to the employment of the petitioners, the petitioners have no legal right to agitate under one pretext or the other. It has further been submitted that there is a smart play undertaken by the original petitioners while getting the interim relief. Had earlier proceedings and the observations contained therein would have been shown to the Court, possibly exparte interim relief might not have been granted and, therefore, also in view of the conduct on the part of the petitioners, equitable relief which having been obtained from the Court deserves to be vacated forthwith. Learned AGP Ms. Vishen has further submitted that the writ of mandamus ultimately is to be Page 6 of 19 C/SCA/9458/2017 IA ORDER granted in favour of the person who is having the legal right and here is a case in which there is no legal and substantive right in favour of the petitioners. Resultantly, even no writ is possible to be issued in favour of the petitioners. Learned AGP Ms. Vishen has further adopted all the submissions which have been made by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shelat and has insisted for vacation of the interim relief forthwith. No other submissions have been made.
7. To meet with the stand taken by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shelat, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Y.N. Oza appearing with Mr. M.N. Marfatia, learned advocate for the opponents have vehemently opposed the stand taken by the applicants. It has been submitted that the interim relief which has been granted was initially on 05.05.2017 which continued all throughout. However, while granting interim relief, specific direction was given to the parties to complete the pleadings before the returnable date i.e. before 02.08.2017 as can be seen from the original order. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Oza has submitted that despite the aforesaid direction which has been issued, the authorities have chosen to submit their respective affidavits after the returnable date. Respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 2 have filed the affidavitinreply just before the returnable date i.e. 06.09.2017 and 06.07.2018 and this interim relief has been continued all throughout till date and therefore, has vehemently contended that the issues which are involved in the petitions deserve be dealt with in the main petition rather than vacating the interim relief. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Oza has assured the Court that they will cooperate with the hearing of the main writ petition and, therefore, interim relief which has been operated all throughout may not be disturbed.
7.1. It has further been contended by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Oza that this granting of employment on contractual basis till regularly selected candidates is a systematic exploitative in nature is Page 7 of 19 C/SCA/9458/2017 IA ORDER continued since several years and the lecturers like the petitioners are being exploited which is nothing but a fraud upon the policy of the employment. It has been submitted that all these colleges which operate in the State Government are practically allowed to undertake education on the basis of employing visiting Professors, if the data of last five years of opening of the Colleges and allowing the same, through visiting Professors to be called for it would clearly indicate that the action of such kind of employment is serious act on the part of the State authorities and conveniently in the pleadings of the state authorities are silent on this issue and have not given any figures. If these last five years data is made available, true fact of vacancy would be revealed before the Court to consider the ultimate relief which has been asked for by the original petitioners. The State authorities are conveniently not allowing the petitioners the status of employment in such a way that no legal right could accrue in their favour and this is nothing but a systematic design adopted by the authority in respect of the employment policy which deserves to be seriously deprecated. It has been submitted that as per the norms, all the colleges are to observe the mandate of the UGC which clearly indicates the requirement of regular vacancies to be filled in. By referring to the norms of the UGC, it has been contended that the UGC had mandated the subject of Hindi as compulsory subject and therefore, the work load is very much available, which the State authority cannot deny and therefore, the reason which has been assigned for seeking vacation of the interim relief by the State authority is not just and proper. On the contrary, there are several colleges minimum 35 40 in numbers are merely allowed to run by visiting Professors and the State authorities under its open eyes is allowing such exploitative pattern executed by the Colleges. Therefore, when the original petitioners are raising larger issues that deserve to be adjudicated by the Court in the writ petition, the protection which has been given may not be disturbed in any manner. The State authorities instead of Page 8 of 19 C/SCA/9458/2017 IA ORDER removing the present petitioners, be directed to examine the issue of appropriate posting to the applicants who are selected instead of removing the petitioners, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Oza has requested not to vacate the interim relief which has already been operated. It has further been contended that this burning issue of employment till regularly selected candidates comes is an issue clinching on every regular interval, at no point of time, the State has come out with any concrete solution and, therefore, this is the case in which the authority instead of insisting upon vacating the interim relief must come out with some concrete solution. The attempt as can be seen that these original petitioners are to be thrown in the jaws of dearness by vacating the interim relief. It has been submitted vehemently by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Oza that if the State authorities would have insisted upon the colleges which are being run to implement the norms strictly which are prescribed by the UGC, this eventuality might not have arisen and, therefore, the State authority cannot be allowed to run away from their obligation just by finding the solution to accommodate the applicants of Civil Application No. 6 of 2018 in place of original petitioners. Resultantly, no case is made out as contended by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Oza.
7.2. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Oza has further submitted that the decisions which have been relied upon by the applicants are the decisions not deciding any issue and have been dealt with at the final adjudication of the main proceedings and, therefore, in view of the settled position of law, the merit of the main petition cannot be touched at the stage of interim relief and for that purpose, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Oza has requested the Court that instead of vacating the interim relief, the main proceedings may be fixed for final disposal at the earliest at any point of time and, therefore, by contending that the decisions which are cited have no barring at an interim stage, the relief cannot be vacated at this stage. Learned Page 9 of 19 C/SCA/9458/2017 IA ORDER Senior Advocate Mr. Oza has reiterated that there are total 62 colleges in the State having Hindi Subject available then the State has to assist the Court and has to produce the figures about the availability of the students, figures about newly opened up colleges in addition to the existing old colleges, to ascertain the issue of strength of Professors and availability of work, the State is also required to bring to the notice as to how many permanent Professors are available and as such without allowing the state authority to undertake this exercise, easy mode of discontinuance of the petitioners cannot be allowed to be operated upon by the authority and the said attempt hides this inaction of State over a period of time, with this exploitative pattern in the employment. To substantiate his contention, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Oza has drawn attention of this Court to various documents attached with the petition compilation and has also produced the bunch of documents along with the affidavitinreply and counter affidavitinreply and has requested the Court to see that the interim relief which has been operative all throughout for a period of practically more than 8 - 10 months, may not be allowed to be vacated. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Oza has also relied upon the following decisions and requested to continue the interim relief and heard the main matter itself instead of vacating the same.
1. In the case of Dhirendra Chamoli and Anr. v. State of U.P., reported in (1986) 1 SCC 637.
2. in the case of Raghunath Rai Bareja & Anr., v. Punjab National Bank & Ors., reported in (2007) 2 SCC 230.
3. In the case of State of Punjab & Ors., v. Jagjit Singh and Ors., reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148.
4. In the case of Vinodbhai Shivrambhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat rendered in a group of petitions headed by Special Civil Application No. 7462 of 2012 and allied matters dated 21.12.2018.
Page 10 of 19C/SCA/9458/2017 IA ORDER
5. In the case of Trivedi Pankajkumar Bhikhalal v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation rendered n Special Civil Application No. 4853 of 2015 dated 10.01.2017.
6. In the case of Sabha Shanker Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer & Ors., rendered in Civil Appeal No. 10956 of 2018 dated 14.11.2018.
7. In the case of Vadodara Municipal Corporation v. Manishbhai Nayanbhai Mod rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 989 of 2018 dated 20.02.2018.
8. A reference is also made of two decisions of the Apex Court dated 03.10.2018 and 27.11.2018 respectively.
7.3. By referring to these decisions, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Oza has submitted that no case is made out at all by the applicants to seek vacation of the interim relief. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Oza has lastly submitted that the reliefs which are already prayed for in the main petition are still to be adjudicated upon and as such, if the interim relief is vacated irreversible situation will be created for the original petitioners. Hence, even if there seems to be prima facie case in favour of the applicants then also the merit at this stage cannot be examined at length which would frustrates the main adjudication which is to take place in the petition. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Oza has then submitted and produced on record the chart which is reflecting various particulars about the continuance of the original petitioners, the steps which are being taken in various colleges and on the basis of production of such chart, a request is made that instead of vacating the interim relief, the main petition be placed for final disposal. No other submissions have been made.
8. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, since the Court is expected to deal with and decide only an issue related to vacating the interim relief without much dwelling into it merit for disposal of these Page 11 of 19 C/SCA/9458/2017 IA ORDER Civil Applications, some circumstance are not possible to be ignored by this Court to arrive at a conclusion.
9. First of all the State authority has submitted an application for vacating the interim relief mainly on the issue that several regularly selected candidates are available who can be appointed in the post of 'Vyakhayata Sahayak' ; Secondly certain regular candidates can be transferred from the present place to their choice of place as per the rules of the government and lastly that the state authorities are desirous to reduce the number of posts on account of not having enough work load. Now these are the circumstances projected in an application for seeking vacation of the interim relief which has been operated right from the year 05.05.2017 which is now sought to be vacated after presenting an application almost after a period of more than one year and these are the circumstances which are seriously in dispute which deserve to be gone into at the adjudication of the main proceedings, particularly, when a serious grievance is raised that this employment on adhoc basis is continued throughout by the authorities for pretty long period.
9.1. A further circumstances, and the observations made in the decisions which have been cited before the Court are also deserve to be considered in the wake of circumstances which are prevailing on record. Certain observations made by the decisions which have been cited are required to be considered as has been agitated seriously and pressed into service and hence, in view of the proposition of law that merits in detail are not to be agitated into at the interim stage and as such regarding the legal right of these original petitioners, regarding continuance of the petitioners in the employment and regarding the reasons which are projected by the State authorities for vacating the interim relief are required to be examined at length in the main proceedings and, therefore, the Court is of the considered opinion Page 12 of 19 C/SCA/9458/2017 IA ORDER that the interim relief which has been operated throughout, right from the year 2017 cannot be vacated forthwith which would practically frustrate the main cause of the petitioners.
9.2. This examination of the issues involved in the petition at length deserve to be undertaken in view of some of the observations which are made by the Apex Court as well as by this Court. Hence, at this stage, once having granted the interim relief which is operative since the period of one year practically, is not possible to be unnoticed. The Apex Court in several decisions have observed that the government employees service tenure is like contract between a Lion and Lamb and an employee is unable to negotiate and hard fact remains that when an opportunity of employment is meager, any condition prescribed in the appointment order, the employee would sign it just like signing a contract on a dotted lines. Now these are the observations which are also required to be considered when the final adjudication is to take place of the main writ petition, the Court cannot ignore such observations which are mentioned even by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Letters Patent Appeal No. 189 of 2018 decided on 20.02.2018 for immediate reference the observations contained in para 4.1 is reproduced hereinafter : "4.1. ................. Though employee has given an undertaking to forgo benefits, including that of regular salary and pay revision available to a Government employee, but as held by the Apex Court, it is a contract between lion and lamp and an employee is unable to negotiate and hard fact remains that when an opportunity of employment is meager, any condition prescribed in the appointment order, the employee would sign it just like signing a contract on dotted lines."
9.3. The Court is of the considered opinion that the State has come out with threefold reasons for vacating the interim relief and that too come up after a period of more than one year and, therefore, those reasons for vacating the interim relief if to be viewed from the Page 13 of 19 C/SCA/9458/2017 IA ORDER pleadings which are reflecting on record, the Court is of the view that though there is no substantive right in favour of the original petitioner apparently looking, in view of the some of the decisions, the reliefs which are prayed for in the main petition deserves to be adjudicated at length and, therefore, if the interim relief is vacated at this stage it would practically frustrate the main challenge and an irreversible situation will be created for large number of petitioners who are serving as on date, may be under the protection of this Court.
9.4. The Court is of the opinion that though grant of interim relief of course requires three main elements, but having granted the same earlier, continued throughout the proceedings for several months, then to vacate during the pendency of the main proceedings, slightly different consideration deserves to be applied. Here, in the instant case, no doubt, the original petitioners tenure is for a particular period or till the regularly selected candidates comes, but the main relief which has been sought for whether it deserves consideration or not, cannot be decided at the interim stage and, therefore, in a peculiar set of present case, when the main interim relief which has been granted is continued throughout, the Court instead of vacating the interim relief is inclined to set down the main petition for final hearing peremptorily at the earliest, so that both the persons will have an advantage of presenting the case at length on merits. This is more so in view of the fact that under the normal circumstances, unless extra ordinary situation emerges, the statusquo is not to be disturbed till the final disposal of the proceedings.
9.5. No doubt, the Court has also taken note of that some of the petitioners have been continued for a pretty long time, and also might be continued under the orders of the Court and it has also been found that large number of colleges which are undertaking educational activities with the aid of merely visiting Professors and, therefore, on Page 14 of 19 C/SCA/9458/2017 IA ORDER one hand, the State authorities went on making selection and on the other hand, the State authorities are allowing large number of Colleges to run on such temporary measure, whether these colleges are observing UGC norms or not and are being allowed to run under the shelter of the authorities is also a question which cannot be unnoticed. All these issues which have been raised are also significant to some extent and, therefore, instead of vacating the interim relief, at this stage of the proceedings, the Court is of the considered opinion that the main petition be heard at length. It also appears that in between some grievance is raised with regard to the prolonging the litigation, but for that the Court would like to put a check upon the original petitioners and would not allow the petitioners to linger on the proceedings after securing the interim relief. The facts and the decisions which have been cited by both the sides will be dealt with by the Court at the final stage, since the decisions which have been cited by the learned advocates for the respective parties, substantially are dealing with the issue at the final stage of the proceedings and, therefore, with respectful agreement, with the said proposition of law, the Court would like to examine the main relief in light of the said observations and therefore, without much dwelling into these issues which have been raised, the Court would like to dispose of the Civil Applications. Since prima facie the issues which are involved in the petition are to be decided at the time of final adjudication of the main proceedings, the Court has refrained from opining anything on merit in detail all rival contentions and since the decisions which have been cited are the decisions delivered at the final stage of the proceedings, the Court has not elaborated the same in the present order. Of course, the concept of binding precedent and the judicial discipline will also be observed by the Court at the final stage of the present proceedings.
9.6. In light of the aforesaid circumstances which are visible from the record, the decisions which have been relied upon by the learned Page 15 of 19 C/SCA/9458/2017 IA ORDER counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants, if to be looked into, the same have been at the final stage of the proceedings and none of the decisions found whereby at the interim stage the elaborate adjudication of issue has been undertaken and then vacated the interim relief. No doubt, the decisions which have been relied upon have its own impact on the present controversy, but the Court would like to undertake later the exercise of its applicability in the context of peculiar situation which has been brought to the notice of this Court. The decision of the Division Bench which has been relied upon, which in the case of K.D. Vora (supra) therefore will be taken in assistance by the Court while the main petition is to be dealt with finally and since the main proceedings are at large, the merit in detail is not analyzed at this stage of the proceedings where only the civil applications for vacating the stay are dealt with by the Court as has been requested. Hence, without much discussing of the said decisions cited by either side at length, at this stage, the Court would inclined to examine the fact of it at the final stage of the proceedings. This is more so in view of the fact that there is a serious grievance raised by the original petitioners that this practice of adhocism till regularly selected candidates come is going on since years together. Resultantly, even on equitable consideration, the Court is not at this stage inclined to disturb the services of the present petitioners since vacating of the interim relief would tantamount to throwing the original petitioners to the jaws of dearness. Their disputed legal rights in the aforesaid overall circumstances will have to be examined by the Court at appropriate stage. At this stage, though it has been pointed out that some of the petitioners have appeared in the examination and have either cleared or failed, such examination of circumstance, the Court is not inclined to undertake at this stage of the proceedings. Since irreversible situation is likely to be created so far the original petitioners are concerned and as such also, even if there is some prima facie case in favour of the applicants, the Court would like both Page 16 of 19 C/SCA/9458/2017 IA ORDER the sides to assist the Court for consideration whether the main relief is possible to be granted in the petition or not. This contention of limited right to continue of the petitioner will have also to be examined in light of the few observations which have been made by the Apex Court in the case of Dhirendra Chamoli & Anr. ( supra), the following are the observations referred to hereinafter.
"2. xxxx xxxxx It is peculiar on the part of the Central Government to urge that these persons took up employment with the Nehru Yuvak Kendras fully well that they will be paid only daily wages and therefore, they cannot claim more. This argument lies ill in the mouth of the Central Government for it is an all too familiar argument with the explciting class and a welfare State committed to a socialist pattern of society cannot be permitted to advance such an argument. It must be remembered that in this country where there is so much unemployment, the choice for the majority of people is to starve or to take employment on whatever exploitative terms are offered by the employer. The fact that these employees accepted employment with full knowledge that they will be paid only daily wages and they will not get the same salary and conditions of service as other Class IV employees , cannot provide an escape to the Central Government to avoid the mandate of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution."
9.7. Of course, this has been in the context of the 'equal pay for equal work' but the ground reality in respect of the employment which has been noted down also deserves consideration especially when this practice of adhoc employment is continued by the respondent authority for number of years and several colleges are allowed to open up and run by the authorities on the strength of visiting lecturers.
9.8. Of course, the Court has kept in mind the objection about the maintainability of the main petition, whether in absence of any legal right the petitioner can maintain the petition or not, or whether they have got a right of regularization or not, will be examined at the final Page 17 of 19 C/SCA/9458/2017 IA ORDER stage of the proceedings and not at the stage of vacating the interim relief. Any observations at the interim relief stage would likely to misconstrue while examining the final relief, hence, prima facie, the Court is also of the opinion that there may not be any legal right in favour of the petitioners to continue with the proceedings, particularly in view of the previous litigation as well, but the interim relief which has been granted on 05.05.2017 has been allowed to be continued by the very state authorities for a period of practically more than one and half year and also by several months by the candidates who filed an application and as such in this situation when the state authorities itself appears to have not been so prompt and vigilant, in this peculiar set of circumstance, the relief prayed for in the petition in terms of para 6 deserves to be considered finally in light of the record which is prevailing. Hence, both these Civil Applications stand dismissed without much discussing and dealing with the decisions at length and opining as if it is final hearing of the main proceedings. Hence, the following observations in the considered opinion of this Court would meet the ends of justice while disposing of the present applications.
10. The present Civil Application No. 1 of 2018 as well as Civil Application No. 6 of 2018 accordingly, stand dismissed in view of this peculiar set of circumstance more particularly, when one set of employees are facing possible termination and other ensuing candidates are awaiting for posting pursuant to their selection, the Court is inclined to fix the main matter for final disposal at the earliest since the pleadings are completed. Accordingly the main proceedings are fixed for final disposal peremptorily in the first week of February, 2019 and the parties are directed to cooperate with the final disposal of the main proceedings. It is made clear that since the petitioners are armed with the interim orders, any attempt made by them either to delay or thwart the proceedings would be viewed Page 18 of 19 C/SCA/9458/2017 IA ORDER seriously. Accordingly, the main matter is fixed for hearing in the first week of February, 2019. Any attempt to delay on the part of petitioners will result in automatic vacation of interim relief.
11. With this observations and clarification, both the civil applications are disposed of.
(A.J. SHASTRI, J) /phalguni/ Page 19 of 19