Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. Sri Narsimhan, learned Counsel, reiterated the submissions made by Sri Ravivarma Kumar and relied upon some of the decisions, referred to by Sri Ravivarma Kumar. The other learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners adopted the submissions of Sri Ravivarma Kumar and Sri Narasimhan and also submitted that at any event of the matter, the services of all ad hoc employees are required to be continued by the Institute tilt the regular appointments are made.

10. Sri A.S. Bopanna and Sri Hiriyanna, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, seriously refuting the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled for regularisation, submitted that the petitioners, who came to be appointed purely on ad hoc basis for a period of six months, are not entitled to seek for regularisation of their services. According to the learned Counsel, the petitioners having accepted the terms of appointment and thereafter, having undisputedly applied for appointment to the posts notified pursuant to the notification issued by the Institute, are estopped from seeking regularisation of their services before this Court. They further submitted that it is on account of the interim order passed by this Court and also on account of the orders passed by the Government from time to time regarding reservation policy, the Institute could not take immediate steps to fill up the vacancies in the various categories of posts in the Institute; and under those circumstances, having regard to the exigencies of the circumstances, the Institute was compelled to make appointments on ad hoc basis and without reference to their merit and competency to hold the post to which they are appointed on ad hoc basis, and, therefore, if a direction is given by this Court to regularise their services overlooking the claim of more than 32,000 applicants, who have made applications to various categories of posts notified and temporarily held by the petitioners, it would not only seriously jeopardise and affect the interest of the Institute, which is treating the Cancer patients and also would run counter to the right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, to various qualified persons, who have a right to be considered to the posts in the Institute; and therefore, it is not appropriate for this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to direct the Institute to regularise the services of the petitioners or to give weightage at the time of selection, to the petitioners for the period of service each one of them has put in. The learned Counsel further submitted that insofar as the petitioners, who are handicapped, are concerned, the Institute will certainly follow the Government Notification providing for reservation to the handicapped persons and consider the cases of those petitioners, who are handicapped, in the light of the Government Circular. But, they are also not entitled to seek for regularisation as the case of those petitioners, who are handicapped, is also required to be considered along with the claim of other handicapped persons who have submitted their applications for selection pursuant to the notification issued by the Institute. The learned Counsel submitted that the decision relied upon by the petitioners in support of their claim for regularisation has absolutely no bearing on the facts of the present case and the direction given by the Supreme Court in the cases relied upon by the learned Counsels for the petitioners, must he understood as applicable only to the facts of those cases. They also relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of J & K Public Service Commission and Others v Dr. Narinder Mohan and Others, Hindustan Shipyard Limited and Others v Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao and Others, Dr. Kishore v State of Maharashtra and Director, Institute of Management Development, Uttar Pradesh v Smt. Pushpa Srivastava and submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to seek regularisation of their services.

"Sri K.M.K. Nair, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that the petitioners are postgraduates, M.Phil. and Ph.D. and they are highly qualified and have acquired experience from 1987 as lecturers. When they were appointed, number of vacancies were available. Since they have been working since 1987, they require to be regularised by suitable directions. We find no force in the contention. The admitted position is that the Commission having been entrusted with the constitutional duty to select suitable candidates by inviting applications from the open market, every candidate has a fundamental right to seek consideration and for selection through open competition. The petitioners also have that right. At one time, they staked their claims but were not selected. Therefore, the process of recruitment through the Commission, as envisaged under the Constitution, cannot be bypassed by issuing direction for regularisation of the services of the ad hoc persons who had come to the service through back-door entry. This Court in a catena of decisions has deprecated this practice of regularisation except in extraordinary cases by directing the Government to frame a scheme and regularise Classes III and IV services in accordance with the scheme. Even in subsequent decisions, that leverage is not being insisted upon. This Court in J & K Public Service's case, supra, had held that the Court cannot adopt hybrid process of direction to regularise the services by passing the process of selection envisaged under the Constitution. This Court has deprecated the Government for exercising the power under Article 320 of the Constitution taking out the posts from the purview of the Commission and to regularise services de hors the Commission. Under those circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim to grant the relief sought for".

We must also say that the orders issued by the Governments of Punjab and Haryana providing for regularisation of ad hoc/temporary employees who have put in two years/one year of service are quite generous and leave no room for any legitimate grievance by any one.

These are but a few observations which we thought it necessary to make, impelled by the facts of this case, and the spate of litigation by such employees. They are neihter exhaustive nor can they be understood as immutable. Each Government or authority has to devise its own criteria or principles for regularisation having regard to all the relevant circumstances, but while doing so, it should bear in mind the observations made herein".