Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The learned Counsel of the petitioners submits that after utilizing the services of the petitioners for few months, the State respondents have no right to pass the impugned order of cancellation of engagement order of the petitioners in such a way, which is unwarranted by law, more so, violative of provisions of Article 14 and the Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. As confronted by the learned State counsel, ultimately, the learned Counsel of the petitioners submits that the petitioners were engaged not following the procedures as required under law; there was neither any advertisement nor any interview for engagement of the petitioners. He tried to convince this Court with a submission that the Government, being a model employer, should not disengage its employees/workers like the petitioners all on a sudden when they are hot able to be engaged in other employment in near future and their family members will be starved due to the wrong action of the State respondents. Learned Counsel also submits that the respondents even did not follow the principles of natural justice at the time of passing the order of cancellation of their engagement/appointment orders.

6. In response to the submissions of the learned Counsel of the petitioners, the learned State counsel, Mr. A. Jagatchandra, submits that Government is an impersonal machinery and it cannot work by itself. It has to take decision and do work through its employees and officers. If any officer or employee acted contrary to the policy decision of the Government and provisions of the recruitment rules without following the normal procedures laid down for engagement, the responsibility for such wrong action cannot be fixed against the Government. In the instant case, the petitioners were engaged on contract basis with a stipulation in the engagement order, inter alia, that the engagement is purely on contract basis and will confer no right on the incumbent to claim for regular appointment and the engagement will automatically cease as and when the Government of India ceases to provide central assistance. He also submits that Government cannot be forced to retain the petitioners who were engaged on contract basis, without following the normal procedure prescribed for engagement and when other unemployed youths are waiting for engagement/appointment facing the normal procedures of selection including interview. The another contention of the learned State Counsel is that now a days it is also settled that nature of engagement or appointment cannot be changed due to long passage of time. He again contended that the Apex Court has already stated in a catena of decisions that when a person enters into service through back door, he is to go through back door. In the instant case, the petitioners were engaged without following the procedure prescribed rather through backdoor, hence their appointment cannot be regularised dehors of Rules applicable to the post. In support of his contention, the learned State counsel relied some cases decided by apex court and of this Court including the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors. wherein the Apex Court stated that appointment dehors. due process of selection envisaged by the Constitutional scheme/rules confers no right on the appointee and said appointee cannot claim regularization as a matter of right and Executives as well as the court also debars from regularization of those appointees who arc appointed dehors the due process of selection.

8. This Court anxiously considers the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and has perused the records available including the writ petition and the affidavit. On consideration of the submissions of the learned Counsel as well as the relevant documents, this Court is fully in agreement with the voice of the learned State counsel and unable to accept the argument raised by the learned Counsel of the petitioners. When thousands of unemployed youths are waiting for engagement in accordance with due process of selection, it is not open for the authority to engage persons dehors the rules, depriving those thousands of unemployed, who are waiting to get their bread and butter by way of employment in due process of selection. At the same time court cannot close its eyes from reality. In some times, it is necessary for the Government to engage persons even without following procedures to complete the urgent nature of work or when an employee is on leave vacancy, but that will be for a short-term, so that the urgent nature of work can be done only to save the people from their sufferings and urgent administrative works not for normal functioning of the administration. In the instant case, since the engagement of the petitioners were on contract basis, the said engagement cannot confer any right to the petitioners for regular appointment as sought for, when they were engaged without following the normal procedure of selection and dehors of rules applicable for the post and depriving the unemployed youths waiting for engagement/appointment lacing normal procedure of selection. Government being an impersonal machinery and the decision of which is being taken by its officers and employees, should not allow to be suffered for wrong action of its agency like officer and employee. In the instant case, it is in admitted position that the petitioners were engaged on contract basis without following the necessary procedure prescribed for selection and also in the terms and condition of their engagement it is specifically mentioned that engagement is purely on contract basis and will not confer any right on the incumbent to claim regular appointment. Doctrine of discrimination is applicable in a case where enforceable right of a citizen is existed, in the present case the petitioners have no right to be continued to the post for which they were engaged unless the authority extends the period of engagement. Hence violation of provisions of Article 14 and Article 311(2) does not arise, particularly when contractual engagement itself clothed with conditions made therein. Therefore, the order of cancellation of the order of engagement of the petitioners vide Annexure-A/3 are valid and reasonable and there is nothing for interference by this court.