Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The petitioners are candidates for the posts of Assistant Professor, which were advertised. With the regularisation of number of Guest Faculty, the number of posts may considerably reduce, as a result of which the chance of selection of the petitioners may be affected, hence, they have a cause of action to challenge the policy. Referring to the judgment of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of 5 of 49 Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 [hereinafter referred to as 'Umadevi (3) and others case (supra)'], it was submitted that one time relaxation was given to the State to frame any policy for regularising services of the employees, who had been working for the last 10 years. Specific directions were given that the process to fill remaining vacancies be initiated. Needful be done within six months and further in future, no appointments should be made by bypassing the constitutional requirements. The aforesaid judgment was delivered on 10.4.2006. All the issues raised by the employees so working on contract basis with reference to their legitimate expectation were considered. After the aforesaid judgment, vide notification dated 13.4.2007, the State Government rescinded all earlier notifications issued regarding regularisation of services of ad-hoc/daily-wage/contract/part-time workers etc.

33. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

Various Regularisation Policies Policy dated 7.3.1996

34. A letter was issued on 7.3.1996 on the subject 'Regularisation of ad-hoc Class III Employees. Vide aforesaid letter, the Government decided to regularise the services of ad-hoc employees who had completed two years of service as on 31.1.1996.

Policy dated 17.6.1997

35. Notification dated 17.6.1997 provided that ad-hoc Group 'C' employees, who had completed two years of service as on 31.1.1996 and were in service on that date should be made regular. It further provided that 17 of 49 daily wager, who had completed three years of service on Group 'C' posts as on 31.1.1996 and were in service on that date be regularised provided that they fulfil the requisite qualifications. In case, the posts are not available, the same should be got created or they should be regularised in Group 'D' scale on compassionate ground. The posts were to be taken out of the purview of the Subordinate Services Selection Board.

Policy dated 8.12.1997

36. Vide letter letter dated 8.12.1997 on the subject 'Regularisation of ad-hoc Class II employees', the Government decided to withdraw its earlier communication dated 7.3.1996 providing for regularisation of ad hoc Class-II employees, who had completed two years of service as on 31.1.1996. It was withdrawn giving reference to judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in P. Ravindran v. Union Territory of Pondichery and others, (1997) 1 SCC 350.

Policy dated 5.11.1999

73. As regards the case of the candidates, whose services were regularised in terms of the order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, needless to add that there being a direction by the Court in their favour, they 46 of 49 will not be affected with the result of the petitions quashing the regularisation policies.

Regarding locus

74. In our view, the candidates, who could apply for the posts advertised for recruitment will certainly have locus to challenge the policies framed by the State for regularisation of ad hoc/contract/work-charged/daily wages and part-time employees, as with the result of their regularisation, number of posts to be filled up would considerably reduce, thereby restricting the chances of the candidates for recruitment. The contention by learned counsel for the State that number of posts advertised will not be reduced with regularisation of the services of the employees appointed on ad-hoc/contract/work-charged/daily wages and part-time, as there are other vacant posts available is to be noticed and rejected for the reason that even against other posts lying vacant in the State, every eligible candidate has fundamental right to compete.