Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Oa Nos.182/2012 To 193/2012 vs Union Of India on 21 August, 2012
1 OA Nos.182/2012 to 193/2012 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BOMBAY BENCH, MUMBAI. ORIGINAL APPLICATION Nos.:182/2012 to 193/2012 Date of decision: 21st August, 2012 CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. BASHEER, MEMBER (J) HON'BLE SHRI R.C. JOSHI, MEMBER (A). Yogesh Prakash Bhagat R/at B-107, Veena Santoor, Saibaba Nagar Extension Road, Opposite Kamala Vihar Sports Club, Borivali (West), Mumbai 400 092. ... Applicant in OA 182/12 Kaushik D Mistry R/at G-4, 1-C Wing, Millennium Arcade, Gopinath Chowk, Umesh Nagar, Dombivli (West), Thane 421 202. ... Applicant in OA 183/12 Kavita N. Gadkar R/at 703 Shanti Niketan C.H.S. Sane Guruji Marg, Jecob Circle, Mumbai 400 011. ... Applicant in OA 184/12 Sonal Kamal R/at B-107, Trikutta Towers, Near Sun City, Adishankaracharya Marg, Powai, Mumbai 400 076. ... Applicant in OA 185/12 Mayuresh Mangesh Bhatkar R/at 52/Ghatkoparwala Bldg, 3rd Floor, Room No.34, Bandu Gokhale Path, Charni Road Station (East), Mumbai 400 004. ... Applicant in OA 186/12 Subhash Pandhari Bhopi R/at Chamtoli, Post-Kulgaon, Badlapur (East), Tal.Ambernath, Dist. Thane, Pin-421 503. ... Applicant in OA 187/12 2 OA Nos.182/2012 to 193/2012 Nagesh Sherkhane R/at 3D/301, Devratna Nagar, Surya Darshan Building, Swadeshi Mill Road, Chunabhatti (E), Mumbai 400 022. ... Applicant in OA 188/12 Swapnil Sudhakar Patil R/at B-103, Ashirwad Complex, C.H.S., Sector -1, Plot-83, Opposite Adarsh Hotel, Koper Khairne, Navi Mumbai 400 709. Jitesh Ramesh Raut R/at B-204, Siddhant Prapti Apts., Sabe Road, Near Holy Spirit Eng. School, Diva (E), Thane 400 612. Madhavi Mandar Sawant R/at C-22, Mahindra & Mahindra C.H.S., Shri Krishna Nagar, Near Nancy Colony, Borivali (West) Mumbai 400 066. Ulka Vikram Doke R/at Room No.03, Mulla Chawl, Shanti Nagar, Road No.27, Wagle Estate, Thane 400 604. Nishant Dhirajlal Gajipara R/at B-402/403, Swami Samarth Nagar, Opposite Shangrilla Biscuit factory bus stop, Bhandup (W), Mumbai 400 078. ... Applicant in OA 189/12 ... Applicant in OA 190/12 ... Applicant in OA 191/12 ... Applicant in OA 192/12 ... Applicant in OA 193/12 (By Advocate Shri V.S. Masurkar) VERSUS 1. Union of India, Through Secretary, Department of Information Technology Min of Communication & Information Technology, Electronic Niketan, CGO Complex At PO New Delhi 110 003. 3 OA Nos.182/2012 to 193/2012 2. Director SAMEER (Society for Applied Microwave Electronics Engineering and Research (Autonomus R&D Institute) Having Registered office at IIT Campus, Hill Side Powai, Mumbai 400 076. 3. Registrar SAMEER (Society for Applied Microwave Electronics Engineering and Research (Autonomus R&D Institute) Having Registered office at IIT Campus, Hill Side Powai, Mumbai 400 076. ... Respondents (By Advocate Shri N. Helekar) O R D E R (ORAL) Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice A.K. Basheer, Member (J)
All these Original Applications are being disposed of by this common order since a common issue is involved in them.
2. The applicants in all these cases were initially engaged in the categories like Project Assistant, Scientist 'B', Scientific Assistant 'A' and Project Technician in SAMEER, the Society for Applied Microwave Electronics and Research (herein referred to as 'Society'). It is beyond controversy that these applicants were engaged on contractual basis and specifically on the terms and conditions stipulated in the orders of engagement issued to them. We do not propose to refer to or deal with all those terms and conditions since they are not necessary for the purpose of disposal of these cases, except the condition that the appointment was made purely on temporary basis, initially for one year which can be 4 OA Nos.182/2012 to 193/2012 extended further depending on performance and availability of project work. It is the admitted position that the applicants in Original Application Nos.191/2012 & 192/2012 had joined the Society in 2002 while the applicants in Original Application Nos.182/2012 & 184/2012 had joined in 2004 and the others between 2006 and 2008. It is also on record that the applicants are continuing in the Society even now in different Projects ever since their initial appointment.
3. The common grievance of the applicants is that the Society is refusing to regularise their services even though they have rendered blemishless service during these years. According to the applicants, the modus operandi adopted by the Society in continuing to extend the period of their contract is not only illegal, but also contrary to the bye-laws of the Society. Therefore, they pray for an appropriate declaration and also a direction to regularise their services in the Society.
4. Apparently, the applicants have been constrained to institute these proceedings since the respondents proposed to hold a 'walk-in-interview' on March 9, 2012 for recruitment to various posts like Senior Research Scientist, Principal Research Scientist, Project Assistant 'B' and Project Assistant 'C'. Applicants contend that the respondents are not justified to hold such a selection process to make 5 OA Nos.182/2012 to 193/2012 fresh recruitment to the above posts without regularising their services.
5. When these Original Applications came up for admission, this Tribunal had passed an interim order directing the respondents to maintain status-quo as on that date thereby allowing the applicants to continue on contractual basis. However, it was further made clear that it would be open to the respondents to proceed with the 'walk-in-interview' as scheduled. The said interim order is still in force.
6. The respondents in their written statement have stoutly defended the action taken by them in conducting the recruitment process. According to them, the applicants were admittedly appointed on temporary and contractual basis on a consolidated pay, in various Projects undertaken by the Society for and on behalf of various organisations. In other words, the applicants were never appointed against regular vacancies on a regular basis. The regular posts available in the Society are being filled up though separate recruitment processes. In short, the contention is that the applicants who were engaged on a contractual basis cannot as of right claim regularisation. However, it is made clear that they will be entitled to compete in the recruitment process along with other eligible candidates for regular recruitment against vacancies which are available in the Society.
6 OA Nos.182/2012 to 193/20127. But Shri Masurkar who appears for the applicants contends that the whole process for recruitment now held in March, 2012 smacks of arbitrariness in-as-much as the said exercise is in total violation of the bye-laws of the Society itself. According to the learned counsel, the services rendered by these applicants over the last few years have been indisputably blemishless. Their services were being monitored by the Society constantly, and these applicants have not so far given room for any complaint about their services. More importantly the bye-laws of the Society, particularly Clause 25 thereof, postulates that the Scientists, Project Assistants etc. like the applicants are entitled to be reularised.
8. We refrain from dealing with any of the contentions raised by either of the parties in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants at the Bar when these cases are taken up for consideration.
9. It is brought to our notice that the applicants in Original Application Nos.185/2012, 189/2012 and 193/2012 had participated in the selection process held in March, 2012. However, these applicants could not ultimately qualify for selection. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that these three applicants cannot now turn around and contend for the position that their services are bound to be 7 OA Nos.182/2012 to 193/2012 regularised. Yet again we do not propose to deal with that issue at this stage.
10. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have already submitted individual representations requesting the Society to regularise their services. He submits that the Society is bound to take a decision on those representations keeping in view clause 25 of the bye-laws of the Society. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Society is not averse to take a decision strictly on the basis of the individual merit of the candidates concerned and subject to the clauses contained in the bye-laws and all other relevant rules and regulations, if any.
11. In view of the above submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at the Bar, we are satisfied that the applicants can be relegated to the competent authority, namely, respondent no.1.
12. In the above facts and circumstances, these Original Applications are disposed of with a direction to respondent no.1 to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representations submitted by the applicants seeking regularisation of their services in the Society. It will be open to the applicants to submit a fresh/additional representation, if so advised, incorporating all their contentions in support of their individual cases in which event, respondent no.1 or any other authority which is 8 OA Nos.182/2012 to 193/2012 competent under the bye-laws, shall take a decision on those representations strictly on their merit and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to mention, the authority concerned shall offer sufficient opportunity to the applicants to be heard in the matter before any decision is taken. We make it clear that we have not considered the merit or demerit or any of the contentions raised by the parties in these cases.
13. The above Original Applications are disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
(R.C. Joshi) (Justice A.K.Basheer) Member(A) Member (J) mf.