Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13.1. On the other hand, petitioners themselves have stated in the writ petition that they were appointed as home guards under the Bombay Home Guards Act, 1947. If that be so then they were not appointed as Class IV employees of FCI. Statements of the petitioners are not only contradictory but are also contrary to facts on record.

13.2. Respondents had published the impugned advertisement after obtaining sanction of the FCI Headquarter for recruitment to 187 posts of 'watchman'. The said advertisement was published in several WP13593_17.doc newspapers. It is asserted that the advertisement did not contravene any FCI circular. Pursuant to the advertisement a selection process was undertaken for direct recruitment to the post of 'watchman'. The selection process comprised of two stages i.e., written test followed by physical endurance test which was only for qualifying purpose. The final merit list was prepared on the basis of written test subject to qualifying in the physical endurance test.

13.3. Respondents have stated that reliance placed by the petitioners on the FCI circular dated 16/17.05.2013 for recruitment to the post of 'watchman' is misplaced inasmuch as the same has been kept in abeyance vide letter dated 04.07.2013 for want of approval of the Government of India. Therefore, the circular dated 16/17.05.2013 is no longer in force. Instead fresh guidelines in the form of circular dated 09/19.08.2016 are applicable in respect of recruitment to the post of 'watchman' in FCI. Reiterating further, respondents have stated that petitioners are performing their duties in FCI as security guards under employment of Nasik District Security Guards Board and not as 'watchman' of FCI. Therefore, petitioners cannot seek regularization of service in FCI.

25. Admittedly, petitioners do not fulfill the criteria laid down in the advertisement dated 03.08.2017. In such circumstances, petitioners have contended that FCI authorities ought to have granted them age as well as qualification relaxation. In this connection they have relied upon FCI Circular dated 16/17.05.2013. The said circular laid down operative guidelines for recruitment to the post of 'watchman'. While stressing upon the need to immediately start the process for filling up vacancies in the post of 'security guard' in the FCI, the following guidelines were laid down:-

26. Response of respondent Nos.3 to 6 to the above is that petitioners never worked as Class IV employees of FCI. That apart, they do not have any bond or contract with FCI. Therefore, there is no privity of contract between the petitioners and FCI. In other words, petitioners are neither contractual nor ex-contractual security guards working in FCI. Petitioners are under the agency of Nasik District Security Guards Board constituted under the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981. Nasik District Security Guards Board has been providing security services to FCI from 01.05.2014 onwards and this is how petitioners are being deployed as security guards in FCI, Manmad. Since petitioners were not in contractual employment with FCI, circular dated 16/17.05.2013 would not be applicable. Further, contention of respondent Nos.3 to 6 is that the said circular dated 16/17.05.2013 is no longer in force, the same having been kept in abeyance for want of approval of Government of India.