Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8.Heard the rival submissions made on both sides.

9.At the outset, this court is not inclined to accept the objection so raised on the side of the respondents that the appointment of the petitioners without cadre strength is illegal and their appointment cannot be regularised by the Government for the following reasons. It may be true that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in (2004) 7 SCC 112 (A.Umarani v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies and others) held so. As far as the present case is concerned, the appointment of the petitioners was stated to be irregular mainly on the ground that the same was in excess of cadre strength. Except this, no other ground was made in the impugned orders to deny the benefit of regularisation of the petitioners in their respective cadres. Whereas, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this court to vacancies position as on 30.9.2001 enclosed in the typed set of papers, as per which, there were required number of vacancies in the posts of Data Entry operator, Typist and Technicians to consider the petitioners' representation for regularisation of them in their respective cadres. As a matter of fact, the impugned G.O.(2D) No.137 dated 28.9.2007 refers to vacancies of 35 posts in the cadres of Driver, Technicians Technicians (Lab) and Executive (Typist). It is stated therein that the above mentioned 35 posts may be down graded to accommodate 55 casual labourers, whose services remain to be regularised. The particulars furnished in the Annexure I appended to the said G.O would reveal that the petitioners were among 54 casual labourers and they possess requisite age and educational qualifications and were recruited through employment exchange and completed 480 days within a period of 24 calendar months. In view of the same, the plea that the appointment of the petitioners' was illegal and through back door entry for want of cadre strength, deserves no merit and acceptance. As a matter of fact, the petitioners were already regularised as Junior Factory Assistant at entry level. It is nobody's case that the petitioner are not entitled to be regularised in service at all. But, the objection raised herein is that they have no right to be regularised as Data Entry Operator/Typist/Fitter/Electricians and are entitled to be regularised only as Junior Factory Assistant at entry level. Thus, this Court is only required to go into the question as to whether the petitioners' claim for being regularised as Data Entry Operator/Typist/ Fitter/Technicians is legally valid or not.