Supreme Court of India
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Uma Maheswari And Ors. on 8 April, 1997
Equivalent citations: JT1998(9)SC272, (1997)11SCC228, AIRONLINE 1997 SC 401, AIRONLINE 1997 SC 329
Bench: Sujata V. Manohar, V.N. Khare
ORDER
1. The ten respondents were engaged over the years on daily wages, and for different periods during each year, by the appellant Regional Director, Staff Selection Commission (Southern Region). Their services were discontinued with effect from 19-6-1993. They approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") praying for their reinstatement and regularisation. The Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 21-10-1993 has directed reinstatement of the ten respondents and has also directed the Staff Selection Commission to frame a scheme for absorption of the respondents against Group "D" vacancies which exist or which may arise in their establishment and has given other directions in this connection. The appellant has come in appeal from this decision of the Tribunal.
2. It is the contention of the appellant that the appellant is already having regular employees for handling and processing the applications received by it in connection with various examinations conducted by it. When there is additional or extra work which is more than what the regular employees can handle, the appellant engages daily-rated casual workers for handling the extra work. The work involves opening the envelopes containing the applications, numbering them, processing them and so on. According to the appellant, this additional work is not perennial in nature and, therefore, the question of engaging these casual workers on regular basis does not arise.
3. The appellant has pointed out that in 1993 a decision was taken by the Staff Selection Commission for all its regional offices, to discontinue the engagement of such daily-rated casual workers on account of a large number of problems thrown up because of mishandling of applications by unskilled labourers. It contends that it became necessary to find ways and means to eliminate shortcoming in handling documents of a sensitive nature and also to improve the efficiency, accuracy and speed in connection with their work of selecting candidates for various jobs handled by them, so that they could eliminate a large number of public complaints received on account of mistakes in handling applications by unqualified hands. The Staff Selection Commission decided, therefore, to get the work done by Data Processing Agencies who are professionals in the field. The appellant has contended that the services of such agencies are being utilised by other major recruitment boards or agencies in the country. The learned Counsel for the appellant has given the example of the Railway Recruitment Boards, Banking Services Recruitment Boards and Universities who have found the processing of applications at the pre-examination stage by Data Processing Agencies efficient and less prone to mistakes. The Staff Selection Commission, therefore, for cogent reasons decided to give the work to such Data Processing Agencies.
4. Manual work, however, in connection with the handling of these applications was given by the appellant to the Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen's Corporation Limited (TEXCO). The appellant entered into a contract with TEXCO for doing this manual work at the rate of 50 paise per application. It seems that TEXCO gets this work done through ex-servicemen, their widows or daughters. The respondents contend that the manual part of the work which is being handled by TEXCO should have been continued with them and their services should have been regularised. It is for the appellant to decide whether such manual work should be got done through casual workers or through TEXCO. If the decision is taken bona fide to improve efficiency, we cannot question it. Since the work earlier performed by the respondents is now divided between Data Processing Agencies and TEXCO, only a portion of the work is being handled by TEXCO. In these circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that the respondents should be continued only for doing the work now given to TEXCO. We have also not been shown any scheme framed by the appellant for regularisation of casual workers. The appellant in the interest of efficiency and better handling of applications has divided the work between Data Processing Agencies which are professionals in this field and TEXCO which does the manual handling work. The latter is doing the work on a contract basis. In the absence of any scheme of regularisation and in the absence of any regular work being available for the posts of which the respondents claim regularisation, we do not see how the Tribunal could have granted any order directing regularisation of the services of the respondents. It is true that the respondents have worked for a number of days in a year and for some years, but this was prior to the introduction of the new policy in 1993. The Tribunal was, therefore, not right in directing the appellant to reinstate the respondents whose services had been discontinued or for directing regularisation of their services.
5. We are, however, told by the learned Counsel for the respondents that after the order of the Tribunal, the respondents have been reinstated and they are being continued in service. She also contends that thereafter there is a scheme of regularisation of casual workers such as the respondents. The scheme is framed by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel Affairs which applies to the Staff Selection Commission also under which casual workers such as the respondents can be regularised. We, therefore, make it clear that if the appellant has framed any scheme of regularisation for which the respondents are eligible and the respondents are entitled to claim regularisation under such a scheme, our order here will not come in the way of their regularisation. With these observations we allow the appeals and set aside the order of the Tribunal. There will, however, be no order as to costs.