Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"14. Petitioners in this case seek appointment as Lab Technicians/Lab Assistants. In the present case, the relief which is claimed by the petitioners of their being regularized cannot be granted because if petitioners are specifically appointed for contractual period in terms of the advertisement which required only contractual employment for 11 months, then, if the petitioners are regularized only because they were appointed against sanctioned posts, the same would be clearly a violation of the ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Umadevi (supra) because if the petitioners are directed to be regularized merely because there existed sanctioned posts, although the advertisement and appointments were only and specifically for 11 months only, then what will happen is that by issuing of an advertisement by the respondent no.2 which was only for contractual appointments of a limited period of 11 months, injustice would be caused to dozens or hundreds of other persons who would not have applied to the posts on the ground that the posts are contractual posts only for 11 months and such persons, being the ordinary citizens, who therefore would seek appointment with other employers who would offer permanent posts. If this Court allows regularization of the petitioners, and merely because petitioners are appointed against sanctioned posts, the spirit of the ratio of Umadevi's case (supra) would be violated because then in such cases the authorities of the State instead of making regular appointments to sanctioned posts, will advertise and make contractual appointments to sanctioned posts for specified periods, and thereby play a fraud upon general public being persons who would have applied if the posts were advertised as permanent posts. Thus regularization cannot be granted only because petitioners were appointed against sanctioned posts, once the advertisement and appointments were only for a limited period of just 11 months.

6. I have reproduced the order passed by the Division Bench above, and though the Division Bench has set aside the judgment of this Court in Som Dutt's (supra) case, I note that no discernible reasons by referring to any Supreme Court judgment has been given by the Division Bench for differing with the ratio laid down in the case of Radhey Shyam (supra). Hence the order on 24.3.2015 cannot be considered as a legal precedent for holding that the judgments in the cases of Radhey Shyam and Ors.(supra) and Som Dutt and Ors. (supra) did not correctly lay down the law inasmuch as these judgments were on the basis of the specific ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors., 2006 (4) SCC 1 which categorically holds that contractual/term-based employees cannot be regularized. The ratio of Umadevi's case (supra) does not contain exception when contractual appointments are made in the absence of recruitment rules that such contractual appointees can be regularized.

"14. Petitioners in this case seek appointment as Lab Technicians/Lab Assistants. In the present case, the relief which is claimed by the petitioners of their being regularized cannot be granted because if petitioners are specifically appointed for contractual period in terms of the advertisement which required only contractual employment for 11 months, then, if the petitioners are regularized only because they were appointed against sanctioned posts, the same would be clearly a violation of the ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Umadevi (supra) because if the petitioners are directed to be regularized merely because there existed sanctioned posts, although the advertisement and appointments were only and specifically for 11 months only, then what will happen is that by issuing of an advertisement by the respondent no.2 which was only for contractual appointments of a limited period of 11 months, injustice would be caused to dozens or hundreds of other persons who would not have applied to the posts on the ground that the posts are contractual posts only for 11 months and such persons, being the ordinary citizens, who therefore would seek appointment with other employers who would offer permanent posts. If this Court allows regularization of the petitioners, and merely because petitioners are appointed against sanctioned posts, the spirit of the ratio of Umadevi's case (supra) would be violated because then in such cases the authorities of the State instead of making regular appointments to sanctioned posts, will advertise and make contractual appointments to sanctioned posts for specified periods, and thereby play a fraud upon general public being persons who would have applied if the posts were advertised as permanent posts. Thus regularization cannot be granted only because petitioners were appointed against sanctioned posts, once the advertisement and appointments were only for a limited period of just 11 months.

It was clearly held: [Umadevi (3) case (supra), SCC p.35, para 41] "These binding decisions are clear imperatives that adherence to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is a must in the process of public employment." (emphasis added)

8. A reference to para 22 above in the case of National Fertilizers Ltd. (supra) makes it abundantly clear that the advertisement which should be issued for inviting applications from eligible candidates has to be a proper advertisement and an advertisement in the prescribed manner. In my opinion, appropriate advertisement or advertisement in the prescribed manner necessarily means that advertisement issued for seeking appointment is advertisement for employment in permanent tenure and not an advertisement which seeks appointments to temporary posts or for temporary period in permanent posts or appointments are to be only contractual appointments. Para 22 above in the case of National Fertilizers Ltd. (supra) specifically notes that regular appointment to a post under the State or Union cannot be made without issuing advertisement in the prescribed manner, and prescribed manner necessarily has to mean that the posts have to be advertised as permanent tenure posts for being filled up, inasmuch as, otherwise multitude of people who would otherwise be eligible to apply, may prefer to skip the employment process thinking that it is only for a temporary period or a contractual period since posts are not for permanent employment. Para 22 above in the case of National Fertilizers Ltd. (supra) makes it clear that appointments made without issuing requisite advertisement would violate the guarantee under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.