A. Santhalakshmi and Others vs The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission

D. Murugesan, J.—In all these writ petitions, the common question arises for consideration of this Court is as to whether the Petitioners who

were appointed by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission either as Section Writers or as Fair Copyists on daily rate basis are entitled to seek

for absorption and regularisation of their services. Since the issue involved in all the writ petitions are one and the same, all the writ petitions are

dealt with by a common order.

The Petitioners in all these writ petitions were appointed either as Section writes or as fair copyists from the year 1991 onwards by the

Respondent Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission hereinafter called as ""The Commission"" after their names were sponsored by the Employment

Exchanges and after the interview. The Petitioners are working from the respective date of the appointment continuously till date barring some

artificial breaks in their services. The Petitioners services are continuous, meritorious without any blemish. The nature of the work of the Petitioners

is the same as that of the regular employees and the responsibilities and duties are also equal to that of the regular employees and the Petitioners

were asked to work in various sensitive posts and that being so, the Respondent Commission without assigning any reasons discontinued the

services of some of the Petitioners by placing a notice in the notice board and in respect of some other Petitioners by oral orders. Aggrieved by the

same, the present writ petitions have been filed challenging either the order of ouster in writing or in oral and for a consequential direction to

regularise the services of the Petitioners with the consequential benefits from the date of absorption in the Respondent Commission.

Mr. R. Singaravelan, Learned Counsel appearing for some of the Petitioners would contend that the Petitioners were appointed through

employment exchange on merits and after an interview to the post of section writers. The Petitioners are in possession of graduate degrees in

various discipline and they are fully qualified to be absorbed in the Respondent Commission. The Learned Counsel would submit that the ouster of

these Petitioners are arbitrary and unreasonable being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Respondent is taking

steps to appoint daily rated employees to the same posts where the Petitioners were appointed by replacing the Petitioners. It is the fundamental

principle of taw that a daily rate employee cannot be replaced by another daily rate employee. The Learned Counsel submitted that even though

the Petitioners are called daily rated employees, there was no difference between the Petitioners and the permanent employees in the matter of

work as well as the responsibilities. The Learned Counsel submitted that such of the daily rated employees who worked between 1991-1992 in

Census department for the period of six months only have also been absorbed in a phased manner by giving age relaxations and other benefits in

the various departments of Government of Tamilnadu. The Petitioners in all the writ petitions are working continuously for more than four years and

therefore their services should be regularized. The Learned Counsel in this regard would rely upon the following judgments of the Supreme Court

reported in (1) ""1990 (I) SCC 361 (Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation), (2) Rattan Lal and Others Vs. State of

Haryana and Others, , AIR 2000 (3) SCW 3186 (Union of India and Ors. v. Debika Guha and Ors./tmp1>.), AIR 2000 (4) SCW 3586

(Hindustan Machine Tools and Ors. v.. Rangareddy and Ors.) and (5) Jacob M. Puthuparambil and others Vs. Kerala Water Authority and

others, "".

Relying upon the above judgments, the Learned Counsel would submit that even a daily rated employee is entitled for absorption and regularisation

of services.

Mr. S.M. Subramaniam, Learned Counsel appearing for some of the Petitioners would raise more or less similar grounds seeking for absorption

and regularisation of the services of the Petitioners. He would also contend that the Petitioners were appointed as section writers on daily wages

through Employment Exchanges and most of the employees are having under graduate degree qualification and some of the Petitioners are having

post graduate degrees and they are working for more than two years continuously. The Learned Counsel would submit that large number of

retrenched employees of the Commission were absorbed in the Government. From the year 1991 onwards more than 250 employees are

continuously engaged on daily rate basis. The Petitioners are almost over aged and further the names are deleted from the rolls of the employment

exchange and they missed their chances for other employments during this period. The Learned Counsel would rely upon the following judgments

of the Supreme Court reported in (1) ""1983 (3) SLR 516 (The Dharwad District P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees'' Association and Ors.

v. State of Karnataka and Anr.), (2) 1988 (1) SLR 349 (The General Secretary, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna v. The Presiding

Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna and Ors.) and (3) Air India Statutory Corporation, etc. Vs. United Labour Union and others [overruled], "" to

contend that the Petitioners are entitled to be absorbed on the basis of a scheme that may be framed by the Court.

Ms. K. Suguna, Learned Counsel appearing for some of the Petitioners would contend that most of the Petitioners who were appointed during

1991 either as section writers or as fair copyists and are working from 1991 and very few of them are working from 1993 and 1995. Till date they

are continuously working. Apart from the submissions made by the other Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Ms. K. Suguna, Learned Counsel

also submitted that it is the policy of the Government of Tamil Nadu to bring all the daily rate employees into regular establishment on completion

of five years of service. She also drew my attention to G.O.Ms. No. 292 P&AR Department dated 31.3.82, G.O.Ms. No. 528 P&AR

Department dated 10.10.98 and G.O.Ms. No. 107 P&AR Department dated 5.7.87 wherein the Government directed the absorption of daily

rated employees in a phased manner in regular vacancies that arose later without their names being sponsored by employment exchange once again

subject to their fulfilment of qualification for such posts at the time of initial appointment on daily wages. Therefore, the Learned Counsel submitted

that the Respondent Commission being a wing of the Government cannot adopt a different procedure and keep the Petitioners on daily wages even

after a period of 11 years. The Learned Counsel would further contend that section writers in Education Department who were appointed on daily

rate basis approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 6048 of 1992 and the same was allowed by order dated 18.6.93 and

the same was implemented by the Government by issuing G.O.Ms. No. 758 Education Department dated 7.3.94 by creating 75 posts of Record

Clerks to absorb the section writers of the Government Examinations. Similarly, daily wage employees of the Education Department were also

absorbed on regular time scale basing on the orders passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 5129 of 1996. Similarly,

section writers who were working in Survey Department and also the Draughtsman cum Surveyors working on consolidated scale of pay were

absorbed in various departments as Record Clerks and Junior Assistants basing on the orders of the Government. Even in the Municipalities,

Town Panchayat and Corporations, daily wage employees who were in service from the year 1996 were brought under regular pay scale as per

the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 125 during 1999. The Learned Counsel also would rely upon the judgments of the Supreme Court

reported in (1) ""1990 SCC (L&S) 174 (Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation) and 2000 (2) SCC (L&S) 1039)"".

Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in W.P. No. 6991 of 2000 would contend that the

Respondent has restricted the relief only in respect of 67 vacancies notified in advertisement No. 20/98 and 32/98 calling for applications to fill up

those posts. She also would contend that the Petitioners were appointed through employment exchanges and they are eligible and qualified to hold

the posts. She also would contend that in G.O.Ms. No. 95 P&AR (P) Department dated 11.4.97, some employees of the Survey Department

who were appointed on consolidated pay were absorbed on regular basis. She would also refer to a similar order of the Government in G.O.Ms.

No. 144 P&AR (P) Department dated 11.8.99 relating to the retrenched employees of Census Organisation of Tamil Nadu. The Learned Senior

Counsel submitted that in view of the age factor, the Petitioners cannot go to any other posts basing the reliance on the judgment of the Supreme

Court reported in ""2000 SCC L&S 1039. The Learned Senior Counsel would contend that the Petitioners could be absorbed in any suitable

posts depending upon the educational qualifications. The Learned Senior Counsel would also rely upon a judgment reported in ""2001 SOL 036

(Gujarat Agricultural University v. Rathod Labu Bechar) "" and submitted that based upon the said judgment the Petitioners also should be

absorbed and their services should be regularized.

Mr. K. Sakthivel and Mr. Thiruvenuadam, Learned Counsel appearing for some of the Petitioners would adopt the arguments of the other

counsel.

Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned Addl. Solicitor General appearing for the Respondent Commission would submit that it is true that the Petitioners

were appointed either as section writers or as fair copyists and their names were sponsored through employment exchanges. However, for the

appointment to any sanctioned posts, the Respondent Commission has to follow the rules with regard to each post and such appointments are

made subject to the educational and other qualifications. The appointments of all these Petitioners were not made in conformity with the rules.

Further those appointments were not as against any sanctioned posts. The appointments were made depending upon the demand for such

appointments by the Commission from time to time and these appointments can be utmost be called as seasonal and to meet out certain

contingencies in the work. Therefore, the Petitioners cannot have any right to ask for regularisation of services more particularly there are no such

posts as section writers or fair copyists in the Respondent Commission and therefore the question of absorption and regularisation of the services

of the Petitioners in the posts which are not available with the Respondent Commission, and the Petitioners cannot seek a direction for absorption

and regularisation. In this context, the learned Addl. Solicitor General would rely upon the following judgments reported in (1) Tamil Nadu Civil

Supplies Corporation Workers Union Vs. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and Others, , (2) State of U.P. and Others Vs. Ajay

Kumar, (3) Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, and (4) M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India and Others, "".

In view of the rival submissions and on the basis of the admitted factual position, let me now consider the judgments relied upon by the

respective counsel on the point as to whether the Petitioners who were appointed on daily rate basis are entitled to absorption and regularisation of

their service. The Supreme Court in the judgment reported in "" Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, "" had an

occasion to consider the case of daily rated workers of Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation. In that case the Petitioners were appointed

on daily wages between 1983 and 1986 and they have been working ever since except for certain artificial breaks. The Supreme Court on a

petition under Article 32, directed the Industrial Tribunal at Delhi to examine the contentions of the Petitioners and the stand taken by the

Respondent on all issues after providing full opportunity to the parties including leading of evidence oral and documentary and to make a report.

The Industrial Tribunal submitted its report by observing that the Petitioners were performing same or similar duties as are performed by the

incumbents of Group ''D'' posts of the Corporation and consequently found that principles of equal pay for equal work enshrined in Article 39(d)

read with Articiles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, all the Petitioners are entitled to equal pay for equal work in relation to the regular

employees and in so far as the nature of work being discharged by the Petitioners therein being equal to those of the regular employees, the

Tribunal suggested that the Petitioners may also be equated with incumbents of Group ''D'' posts. On the basis of the same, the Supreme Court

held ""once the appointments were made as daily rated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard

and harsh to deny them the confirmation in respect of posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualification"". With the above

finding, the Supreme Court directed the regularisation of the services of the Petitioners therein who have put in more than 3 years of service. That

was a case where admittedly all those Petitioners were appointed as against the posts which were in existence as per rules in the Delhi State

Mineral Development Corporation. When the posts are available, the Court took a view that keeping the Petitioners on daily rated basis

continuously for more number of years especially when the Petitioners are performing the same duties as that of the regular employees directed the

regularisation of the services of the Petitioners in the posts that were available.

In Rattan Lal and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, "", the Supreme Court was considering a question as to whether it was open to the

State Government to appoint teachers on ad hoc basis at the commencement of the academic year and terminate their services before the

commencement of the next summer vacation or earlier to appoint them again on an ad hoc basis at the commencement of next academic year and

to terminate their services before the commencement of the succeeding summer vacation or earlier and to continue to do so year after year.

Considering such appointments, the Supreme Court further held those ad hoc teachers are unnecessarily subjected to an arbitrary ''hiring and

firing'' policy. Those teachers who constitute the bulk of the educated unemployed are compelled to accept those jobs on an ad hoc basis with

miserable conditions of service. The Supreme Court also held that the policy of ad hocism followed by the State Government for a long period has

led to breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and such a situation cannot be permitted to last any longer. In that view of the matter, the

Supreme Court directed the State Government to take immediate steps to fill up the vacant posts in accordance with the relevant rules in which the

teachers are appointed on ad hoc basis and allowed those teachers who are holding those posts on ad hoc basis to remain in those posts till the

vacancies are duly filled up. In this case, as pointed out the Supreme Court was considering the ad hoc appointments as against the existing posts.

The Supreme Court deprecated the practice of the State Government in appointing teachers on ad hoc basis as against the existing posts and

consequently directed the State to fill up the vacancies as per the rules and allowed the teachers also to hold the posts till such time the posts are

filled up as per Rules.

In the judgment reported in ""2000 AIR SCW 3186"" the Supreme Court was again considering the grievance of extra departmental agents of

postal department who have worked for 180 days or more in one calendar year continuously for regularisation of their services. However, in that

case the Supreme Court did not accept the contention of the Petitioners therein and held that when the Court had already decided that there

cannot be a legal claim on the basis that ""they have worked for 180 days continously, it may not be necessary for us to consider that aspect of the

matter. Indeed, if it is shown that they have worked for long periods continously, it will be for the department to consider the same whether that

was a proper case for absorption or not and pass appropriate orders"". After making the above observation, the Supreme Court however only

directed the Union of India who was the Appellant therein to examine the case of the workers for regular appointments.

In the judgments reported in ""1983 (3) SLR 516"" and ""1988 (1) SLR 349"", in similar circumstances the Supreme Court framed schemes and

directed the employer to implement the same. The Supreme Court in the judgment reported in ""2001 SOL Case No. 036"" was considering the

question of employees who were engaged due to exigencies of work, without considering the relevant requirements for the purpose of regular

appointment under the Recruitment rules on daily rate basis, and directed the employer to absorb these employees in a phased manner. That was a

case where at the instance of the employees, the Industrial Tribunal went into the question of nature of work performed by the employees and

finally directed the regularisation of services of all such daily rated labourers who have completed 10 years of service as on 1.1.93 and pay all

other allowances along with other benefits of permanent Class IV employees. The said award of the Tribunal was challenged before the High

Court and the writ petition was partly allowed setting aside the award with a direction that the Appellant University to make appointment to the

workmen on the minimum of pay scale and also framed a scheme for regularisation of such daily rated labourers. Pursuant to the said direction, a

scheme was framed and the said scheme was also challenged by the employees before the Supreme Court. While considering the scheme, the

Supreme Court approved the said scheme with some modification. The Supreme Court while approving the scheme had taken note of the fact with

regard to the posts for which those persons were appointed, the recruitment rules did have these posts in its ambit, and yet no posts were created.

The Supreme Court observed ""the Court does exercise its restrain where facts are such where extent of creation of post creates financial disability.

But at this juncture we would like to express our note of caution, that this does not give larger to an institution to engage large number of daily

wage workers for long number of years without absorbing them or creating posts which constitutes an unfair labour practice. If finances are short

engagement of such daily wage workers could only be for a short limited period and if continuous work is required it could only do so by creating

permanent post. If finances are not available, take such work which is within financial mean. Why take advantage out of it at the cost of workers.

On consideration of the above pronouncements of the Supreme Court, it is clear that when the appointments are made on daily rated basis and

the appointments are made as per the rules, those daily rated employees are entitled to regularisation in the respective posts. When an appointment

is made on daily rated basis not in accordance with the rules as against the posts which are not existent as per the rules, and in the absence of any

administrative instructions or statutory Rule enabling the Commission to appoint, those employees cannot have any right to claim regularisation of

services. However, in the interest of both the categories of employees, the Supreme Court has either framed a scheme or approved the scheme

already framed for absorption and regularisation in a phased manner. In this context, the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in State of U.P.

and Others Vs. Ajay Kumar, is relevant. In that case, the Supreme Court was considering the case of appointments which were made against the

posts not in existence and there were no statutory rules under which the employees could be regularized. While considering the same, the Supreme

Court observed ""it is now settled legal position that there should exist a post and either administrative instructions or statutory rules must be in

operation to appoint a person to the post. Daily wage appointment will obviously be in relation to contingent establishment in which there cannot

exist any post and it continues so long as the work exists"". In that view of the matter, the Supreme Court did not accept the contention of the

employees for regularisation of the services.

In the judgment reported in Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, "", the Supreme Court was considering a

challenge to the retrenchment of the daily wage employees on the ground that the termination of their services was in violation of Section 25(1) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Considering the said submission, the Supreme Court held ""when the appointments are regulated by the statutory

rules, the concept of industry to that extent stands excluded. Admittedly, they were not appointed to the posts in accordance with the rules but

were engaged on the basis of need of the work. They are temporary employees working on daily wages. Their disengagement from service cannot

be construed to be a retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act. since they were only daily wage employees and have no right to the posts,

their disengagement is not arbitrary"".

In the judgment reported in M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India and Others, "" while considering a similar question of appointments made on ad

hoc basis, the Supreme Court held that when the appointment to the post in question is governed by set of statutory rules, the employees

appointed without reference to these rules cannot have a right for regularisation. A Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in ""1997

(3) CTC 535"" rejected the request for regularisation of seasonal employees by further holding that the term of appointments stipulated on seasonal

employees are liable to be ousted without any notice.

Based upon the above pronouncements of the Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court, it is to be now considered as to

whether the Petitioners are entitled to regularisation of their services. When the Petitioners were appointed, they were made known that the

appointments were purely on the basis of daily rate and the job is purely temporary and the Petitioners will not be made permanent. In the counter

affidavit filed by the Respondent, it is stated that the sole purpose of engaging section writers or fair copyists is to assist the Commission staff in

attending to various items of examination works. In order to conduct various examinations, the Commission sanctions additional staff to cope up

with the increased volume of work from three to six months or up to a period as may be necessary. The works allotted to section writers, fair

copyists are simple in nature such as scrutiny of applications, comparing of nominal list, checking of check list, despatch of hall tickets, typing of

memos to the candidates etc. As soon as the examination works are completed, their services would be terminated as they are no longer required

in the office. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that the examination work are seasonal and time bound in nature and their services cannot

be continued in the Commission office continuously once the examination works are over. It is the further stand of the Respondent that there is no

post under the rules as section writers or fair copyists and the appointment of these Petitioners were not made as per the rules as against any post

much less any sanctioned post. It is the further contention of the Respondent that even at the time when they were interviewed, they were

specifically asked to submit a declaration that they will not claim regularisation of their services since their employment as section writers and fair

copyists were seasonal and time bound in nature and only to attend the examination work. However, the fact that most of the Petitioners were

engaged from the year 1990 onwards continuously. The work that the Petitioners were assigned from the year 1990 onwards continuously. The

work that the Petitioners were assigned are of recurrence and continuous in nature though it may not be called as permanent nature. Therefore, the

contention of the Respondent that the works performed by the Petitioners are seasonal cannot be accepted. However, the next question to be

considered is as to whether the Petitioners were appointed as against the existing posts and as per rules. The Petitioners have not shown any

materials to contend that the posts to which they were appointed namely section writers and fair copyists are the posts in existence as per the rules.

Except saying that the names of the Petitioners were sponsored by employment exchange, there is nothing to indicate that the appointment of the

Petitioners were made as per the rules to be followed for such appointments. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners also did not bring to my

notice any statutory rule or regulation of the Respondent Commission enabling the Commission to either appoint or absorb and regularize the

Petitioners to the posts to which they are now holding. In the absence of the appointment as per the rules and as against the posts which were in

existence as per the rules as well as in the absence of any sanction to those posts and also in the absence of any instruction or statutory rule

enabling the Respondent Commission to either appoint or absorb and regularize the services of the Petitioners, I am not able to accept the

contention of the Petitioners that by virtue of their continuous service, they are eligible to be absorbed and their services should be regularized. The

question of direction for absorption and regularisation will arise only when there are sanctioned posts available and the Petitioners were employed

in such categories of posts as daily rated employees and have worked continuously for quite number of years, especially when the work as claimed

by the Respondent is only seasonal and to meet certain contingencies. As held by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in State of U.P. and

Others Vs. Ajay Kumar, "", to seek for absorption and regularisation, there must exist a post and either administrative instructions or statutory rules

must be in operation to appoint a person to such post. In the absence of any post in the category of section writers and fair copyists, this Court

cannot direct the Respondent to absorb the Petitioners and regularize their services in the posts. An analysis of the judgments relied upon by the

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners would indicate that wherever the appointments are made as against the category of posts existing under the

rules, the Supreme Court had directed the absorption and regularisation of services. However, when no such posts are available, the Supreme

Court has refused to direct the absorption and regulariztion of services. It is also to be noted that the appointments were made contrary to rules,

the order of termination or retrenchment cannot be questioned on the ground of violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contentions of the respective counsel for the Petitioners that by virtue of the continuous service from the

year 1990 onwards except for certain artificial break, the Petitioners are entitled to be absorbed and their services are to be regularized and the

order of termination is bad. Accordingly, I reject these contentions.

Coming to the next question as to whether the Petitioners should be left with no remedy in view of my above findings. It is not in dispute that

most of the Petitioners were working from the year 1990 on daily rate basis. The fact that they have been continuously engaged from the year

1990 would indicate the recurrence and continuous nature of the work for which these Petitioners were appointed on daily rate basis and their

names were also sponsored through employment exchange and they were interviewed and thereafter only they were appointed and most of the

Petitioners are either under graduates or post graduates. Therefore, the Petitioners cannot be left with no remedy. As has been held by the

Supreme Court, once the appointments have been made on daily rate wages, when consideration of absorption and regularisation the age factor

cannot weigh with the employer and appropriate age relaxation has to be given to those employees in the event the employees are considered for

absorption and regularisation. As could be seen from the averments made in the affidavits, most of the Petitioners have crossed their minimum age

for applying to any post either in Government Departments or in other quasi Government bodies. While these aspects are taken into consideration,

this Court cannot shut its eyes in entirety to the legitimate grievance of the Petitioners for their claim for permanency in the Respondent

Commission. In the absence of the posts of section writers and fair copyists as contended by the Respondent, these Petitioners cannot be also

considered for absorption. However, as per the advertisement, Petitioners have called for applications for preliminary examination for direct

recruitments to as many as 13 category of posts each in Advt. No. 20 of 1998 and in Advt. No. 32 of 1998. The qualifications which are

prescribed under the advertisements are only Degree in under graduate. In similar circumstances, the Government of Tamil Nadu in order to

accommodate similarly placed persons employed in Survey Department, Education Department and Revenue Department directed the employees

to be absorbed in a phased manner. On a perusual of the Government Orders, it is clear that the policy of the Government of Tamil Nadu is to

absorb such of those employees who have put in continuous service and regularize their services whenever the vacancies arise in the different

departments of the Government. In this context, I take note of the observations of the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in Daily Rated

Casual Labour Employed under P and T Department Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, "" which is extracted as follows:

India is a socialist republic. It implies the existence of certain important obligations which the State has to discharge. The right to work, the right to

free choice of employment, the right to just and favourable conditions of work, the right to protection against unemployment, the right of everyone

who works to just and favourable remuneration ensuring a decent living for himself and his family, the right of everyone without discrimination of

any kind to equal pay for equal work, the right to rest, leisure, reasonable limitation on working hours and periodic holidays with pay, the right to

form trade unions and the right to join trade unions of one''s choice and the right to security of work are some of the rights which have to be

ensured by appropriate legislative and executive measures. It is true that all these rights cannot be extended simultaneously. But they do indicate the

socialist goal. The degree of achievement in this direction depends upon the economic resources, willingness of the people to produce and more

than all the existence of industrial peace throughout the country. Of those rights, the question of security of work is of utmost importance. If a

person does not have the feeling that he belongs to an organisation engaged in production he will not put forward his best effort to produce more.

That sense of belonging arises only when he feels that he will not be turned out of employment the next day at the whim of the management. It is for

this reason it is being repeatedly observed by those who are in charge of economic affairs of the countries in different parts of the world that as far

as possible security of work should be assured to the employees so that they may contribute to the maximisation of production. It is again for this

reason that managements and the governmental agencies in particular should not allow workers to remain as casual labourers or temporary

employees for an unreasonable long period of time.

Keeping the above in mind, the Respondent Commission is directed to evolve a comprehensive scheme to provide appointments to the

Petitioners by adopting the following measures:

(i) By considering creation of permanent posts of section writers and fair copyists depending upon the financial implications and accommodating

the Petitioners according to the eligibility norms as may be fixed by the Respondent for such post as per rules and procedure for selection by giving

relaxation of age.

(ii) By giving preference and considering such of those qualified persons for the sanctioned posts which have already arisen and would arise in

future and appointing them subject to their satisfying the eligibility norms and successful in the selection process.

(iii) By recommending to the Government for the Petitioners being considered for permanent appointments in suitable posts in the various

departments of the Governments.

It is made clear that if such recommendations are received, it is open to the Government to issue such orders as may be required for

appointment of the Petitioners to the posts to which they are eligible in various departments in tune with the policy of the Government. It is also

made clear that the Respondent shall not make appointments on daily rate basis for the posts of section writers and fair copyists from outsiders by

replacing the Petitioners from the said posts.

With the above observations, all the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.

Consequently, all the connected WM Ps are closed.