Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. As per para 10(iv) of the said scheme, a seasonal Khalasi is entitled to the age relaxation to the extent of continuous service rendered by him as seasonal Khalasi. The applicants contention is that despite the fact that they satisfied the conditions as laid down in the aforementioned scheme, they have not been conferred the said temporary status and consequently not regularised. It has also been contended that the respondents have regularised 8 other similarly situated officials who were junior to the applicants without conferring temporary status on them. The reason so informed to the applicants for not regularising them was the alleged 'overage' of the applicants. It has been contended that all the applicants except applicant No. 7 had served more than 120 days minimum prior to the commencement of the said scheme of 1997 and, therefore, they were entitled to the grant of temporary status and consequential regularisation.

13. The respondents have filed reply statement to the rejoinder as well as reply to the M.A. No. 299/02. In the said reply statement it is admitted that 8 persons who have been regularised in the year 1998 had not been granted and conferred temporary status under the 1997 Scheme. The respondents have contended that: "even if the applicants hold the temporary status, they cannot be regularised since they were overaged at the time of their initial appointment and as such do not fulfill the eligibility conditions of recruitment rules." (emphasis supplied) A reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in CWP No. 4688/01 decided on 18.5.2002. The said reply statement also states that: "the seniority list of work charged seasonal khalasis prepared as on 1.1.1997 is still in its draft stage." It is admitted therein that office order dated 25.1.2000 was issued granting Temporary Status to 83 seasonal khalasis under the C&SR Circle, but contended that the said order was cancelled vide order dated 8.10.2001 except in case of four officials viz., Babuchari, N.V. Prasanna, S.M. Manjunathaiah and P.S. Basavarajaiah. In sum and substance the emphasis laid by the respondents is that the applicants were overaged in terms of the recruitment rules of 1988 and accordingly they could not be regularised as seasonal khalasis.

17. The question which basically now arises for adjudication and determination is whether this communication dated 22.4.1988 which prescribes the different age limit for recruitment as 18-30 years in comparison to 1973 report of Central Water and Power Commission, Ministry of Irrigation and Power, which prescribed the age limit for khalasi as 18-35 years, which administrative instruction and decision would be relevant in determining as to whether the applicants were overaged at their initial appointment and recruitment, as seasonal khalasis?

(Emphasis supplied) If we have regard to the above law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, it cannot but be held that the respondents action in treating the applicants as overaged at the time of their initial appointment, as contended and thereby made them ineligible for regularisation under the so called 1988 recruitment rules is nothing but illegal, unjust, arbitrary and discriminatory treatment meted out to the applicants. As we have already observed hereinabove that all the applicants except Nos. 4 and 5 were engaged as seasonal Khalasis prior to administrative instructions dated 22.4.1988, they were well within the age limit prescribed under the 1973 report as well as based on the request sent to Employment Exchange at Annexures A-2 and A-3 wherein the age limit prescribed was 18-35 years. As all the applicants except Nos. 4 and 5 were within the prescribed age limit at the time of their initial engagement, the respondents action to treat them ineligible for regularisation on the ground or the alleged Recruitment Rules, 1988, which in our opinion are not the recruitment rules notified under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, and are not applicable, is illegal, unjust, unfair and arbitrary.