2 vs The Union Of India Through The Secretary on 23 May, 2022
As
pointed out by the Supreme Court in All India Trade Union Congress
and others (supra), it is only in an exceptional case that the Court may
consider it appropriate to issue mandatory directions. In the case on
hand, given the flagrant discrimination shown by the authorities in
dealing with two identically situated employees who sought
regularization of their services, the positive direction of the learned
Judge was not only desirable, but very much required."
[17] In the instant case, admittedly, the appointment of the petitioners
is not illegal and the petitioners have been selected and appointed under due
process. Based on the selection and appointment under due process, the
WP(C) No. 717 of 2021 Page 11
12
services of the petitioners were extended from time to time by the respondent
NIT. The engagement/appointment of the petitioners as contract basis and
their continuance in service have not been disputed by the respondent NIT.
However, the respondent NIT contended that the Board of Governor always
advises NIT to regularize any employees as per the norms of existing
recruitment rules of NITs. Nothing has been produced by the respondent NIT
to show that the petitioners are not coming within the said norms and are not
entitled to be regularized. Further, the argument of the learned senior counsel
for the respondent NIT that since the appointments of the petitioners are
contractual and can be terminated by the NIT and the petitioners cannot seek
for regularization, cannot be countenanced.