AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
[1] The petitioner has prayed for a direction of the respondents to regularize his service on the post of Laboratory Attendant or any other regular post.
[2] The petition arises in following background.
The petitioner was appointed as a part time pump operator on 01.12.1993 on a casual basis by the Assistant Registrar of the Tripura University. On 21.06.2001 the petitioner was shifted to the Department of Chemistry and was assigned pump duty. On 16.12.2002 the petitioner was issued a certificate of experience as a Laboratory Attendant in Organic Chemistry Laboratory of the University, showing that he had worked in such capacity between 25.06.2001 to 26.12.2002.
[3] It appears that the University had undertaken the exercise of regularizing services of daily rated workers and causal workers who had completed 15 years of service in the University as on 31.03.2006. From a memorandum dated 07.05.2007 issued by the Registrar of the University it can be gathered that pursuant to such policy decision of the University information was collected with respect to those DRW/Casual workers who had been engaged in duties continuously for a minimum of 15 years as on 31.03.2006. It appears that since the petitioner had not completed 15 years of service in such capacity till then, his case was not considered for regularization.
[4] On 14.11.2014 the University issued a public advertisement notifying various vacancies to be filled up, one of them being the post of Laboratory Attendant. The minimum educational and experience qualifications required as prescribed in the said advertisement were that the candidate must have passed Matric with science as one of the subjects from a recognized Central or State Boards with two years experience in science laboratory of any academic or research institute. The petitioner applied for the post in question. He was however not selected, instead the University appointed the respondents No.4 to 9 on such posts. Thereupon, this petition has been filed.
[5] Mr. R. Majumder, for the petitioner has argued this petition in two parts. The first endeavour was to persuade me to ensure the regularization of the petitioner's service on the post of Laboratory Attendant or any other regular post. His second contention was with respect to the petitioner's non-selection and selection of the respondents No.4 to 9 on the posts of Laboratory Attendant. With respect to the claim for regularization, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been discharging duties continuously since the year 1993 in various capacities. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others versus UmaDevi (3) and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 after completion of 10 years of service the petitioner has a right to be regularized.
[6] With respect to the second limb of the petitioner's challenge, counsel submitted that the petitioner was fully qualified for the post in question. Respondents No.4 to 9 did not have requisite experience qualifications as prescribed under the advertisement. He painstakingly took me through the documents on record produced by the respondents No.4 to 9 before the University in support of their claim that they had requisite experience as prescribed in the advertisement. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the experience certificates produced by the said respondents do not meet the requirement of the University as advertized. The experience was not in the relevant field and in some cases the concerned respondents had not worked in an academic or research institute.
[7] On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the University opposed the petition contending that there is no scheme for regularization of casual workers framed by the University. The petitioner was initially engaged on a part time basis. His later engagement was without any selection process. There was no vacant post on which he was appointed. Regular appointments in the University can be made only through the regular selection process. Regularization of the petitioner without selection would amount to breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. He further submitted that the respondents No.4 to 9 had requisite qualifications. The petitioner himself did not have the degree of matriculation with science subjects. He was not qualified for the post in question. In any case, in the written examination he was awarded 04 out of 50 marks. He pointed out from the affidavit-in-reply filed by the University that the last selected candidate under the un-reserved category had scored 36.5 out of 50 marks in the same examination. The counsel for the University drew my attention to the prayer clause in the petition to show that he had not challenged the selection and appointment of the private respondents No.4 to 9.
[8] I would deal with the petitioner's two challenges separately. Insofar as the petitioner's request for regularization of his service is concerned, the petitioner has not produced any scheme for regularization framed by the University. The petitioner was initially engaged on part time basis and thereafter on a casual basis, cannot seek automatic regularization without going through a regular selection process, dehors the scheme framed by the employer. Even the Supreme Court in case of UmaDevi (supra) does not envisage any such situation.
[9] It is true that the University at one stage had taken one time measure to regularize all DRW and Casual workers who had completed continuous 15 years of service as on 31.03.2006. The petitioner, however, could not take benefit of this policy measure since he had not completed 15 years service till then. His request for automatic regularization in service, therefore, cannot be accepted.
[10] Coming to the petitioner's grievance about the selection of respondents No.4 to 9, at the outset it may be noted that there is no pray in the petition to cancel the appointments of these respondents. In that view of the matter, any further inquiry into the petitioner's grievance was wholly unnecessary. Nevertheless, I have broadly examined the petitioner's contention. In this context, I find that the petitioner himself was not qualified for selection to the post in question. Admittedly the petitioner did not have any of the science subjects in matriculation such as Physics, Chemistry, Biology or Mathematics. The University in its affidavit-in-reply has clearly taken a stand that in that view of the matter, the petitioner was not eligible for appointment. The petitioner, therefore, should not have been allowed even to appear in the written test. For whatever reason, the University permitted the petitioner to appear in the written test in which he scored a bare 04 out of 50 marks as against 36.5 marks scored by the last selected un-reserved category candidate. Considering all these factors, it is not possible to examine the petitioner's contention with respect to the eligibility of the respondents No.4 to 9.
[11] In the result, petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.