AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the applicants/petitioners claiming the following reliefs:
“1. The judgment dated 31.05.2019 (Annex.10) passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench in O.A.
No.290/000026/2014 may kindly be quashed and set aside.
By appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the applicants against the vacancies
arose due to cancellation of earlier selection/recruitment made in pursuance with Notification No.CSWRI/03/2013 published on dated 28.12.2013
(Annex.9), as filling up two out of three posts of group D from amongst TS Casual Labors as per Scheme of 1993 and applicant be allowed with all
consequential benefits also.
Any other appropriate order which this Hon’ble Court thinks just and proper may kindly be awarded in favour of petitioner.â€
Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the applicants/petitioners have contested series of litigation seeking regularization against
subsequent vacancies, independent of the previous vacancies, in Central Sheep & Wool Research Institute, Regional Station, Bikaner, where they
were appointed as Mazdoor (helping staff) and continued to serve upto 01.09.1989. However, the said employment came to an end with effect from
01.09.1989, whereagainst Original Application No.490/1989 was preferred by the applicants/petitioners before the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, which was decided by the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 21.03.1994, while directing the respondents to
reinstate the applicants and others, who had completed 240 days of service, with the further direction to the respondents to afford an opportunity of
employment to the applicants in preference to others, as and when vacancies arise.
The applicants/petitioners though were reinstated in employment, but their services were again terminated with effect from 30.10.1994. The said
termination was also challenged by the applicants/petitioners by filing Original Application No.390/1994 before the learned Tribunal, which came to be
disposed of vide order dated 31.05.1996, while directing the respondents to maintain a register of all casual labour engaged during the different period,
with the further direction that as and when vacancies arise, the respondents shall make the necessary publication so as to ensure that the
applicants/petitioners are engaged in service.
The respondents vide order dated 20.05.1999 called upon the applicants/petitioners to report on duty, but thereafter issued a notification dated
30.06.1999 inviting applications for appointment from temporary status employees, whereby consideration of the applicants was excluded, as
according to the respondents, the applicants/petitioners had not been granted temporary status till that date. The applicants again laid a challenge to the
aforesaid notification by filing Original Application No.156/1999 before the learned Tribunal, which was disposed of vide order dated 15.06.1999 with
a direction to the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation of the applicants by passing a speaking order within a period of two
months from the date of the said order.
The respondents also issued notification No.02/2006 dated 09.09.2006 inviting applications for filling up the posts of Class IV. The
applicants/petitioners, against such notification, preferred Original Application No.229/2006 before the learned Tribunal, as the applicants were
apprehending that the terms of such notification would disentitle them from consideration of their candidature, despite the fact that they have rendered
240 days of service in a year. Vide an interim order dated 03.10.2006, the learned Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the case of the
applicants/petitioners for selection to Group ‘D’ post, pursuant to the notification dated 09.09.2006 (Annexure-A/1 to O.A. No.229/2006),
whereby six vacancies were promulgated against Group ‘D’ post, on provisional basis, but their result were ordered to be kept in a sealed
cover. However, while the aforesaid interim order was in operation, the said notification came to be withdrawn by the respondents, and as a
consequence thereof, vide order dated 13.07.2007, the original application was dismissed as having become infructuous.
The respondents further vide Advertisement No.CSWRI/03/2007 dated 11.06.2007 again invited applications to fill-in, amongst others, six posts of
Supporting Staff Grade I, and though the applicants/petitioners were called up and participated in the interview on 20.11.2007, but upon the result being
declared, as pleaded in the writ petition, six persons, other than the applicants/petitioners, were offered appointment on the said post vide order dated
17.04.2008, which, as per the applicants/petitioners, was inspite of the fact, that they were deemed to be granted temporary status in accordance with
the guidelines for recruitment of casual labour, as contained in Office Memorandum No.49014/2/86 Estt.(C) dated 07.06.1988 issued by the Ministry
of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training), Government of India and Casual Labourers (Grant of
Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Government of India, 1993 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
(Department of Personnel and Training), Government of India, vide Office Memorandum dated 10.09.1993. Therefore, the applicants have preferred
Original Applications No.167/2007, 169/2007, 170/2007, 171/2007, 172/2007, 173/2007 and 174/2007 before the learned Tribunal, wherein the learned
Tribunal passed an interim order dated 07.08.2007, directing consideration of the application of the applicants in accordance with the rules. However,
the said original applications were declared to be non-surviving at that juncture.
Thereafter, the applicants/petitioners came to know about the aforesaid selection being found to be not in order, and thus, the appointments made
thereunder were ordered to be cancelled vide order dated 04.02.2012. Against such termination, original applications, including Original Application
No.254/2012 came to be filed before the learned Tribunal, which were disposed of vide order dated 13.07.2012, directing consideration of the
candidature of the applicants, if the vacancies are notified again.
Thereafter, vide notification No.CSWRI/03/2013 dated 28.12.2013, amongst others, eight vacancies of Skilled Support Staff were notified, out of
which, five were on account of cancellation of previous vacancies arose due to cancellation of the aforementioned irregular appointments.
Accordingly, the applicants have applied against such vacancies, but the candidature of the applicants was not considered.
Aggrieved thereby, Original Application No.290/00026/2014 came to be filed by the applicants/petitioners, which was dismissed by the learned
Tribunal vide the impugned order dated 31.05.2019, observing that the relief claimed by the applicants to the effect of consideration of their cases, in
pursuance of the aforementioned notification No.CSWRI/03/2013 dated 28.12.2013, cannot be granted, for the very basis and foundation in regard to
such relief, itself did not exist.
Learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners submits that the respondents were bent upon to decline the grant of relief to the applicants/petitioners
by not considering their candidature, and thus, the dismissal of the original application, which was preferred against such non-consideration, vide the
impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal, is not in tandem with the provisions of law.
Learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners further submits that despite the prolong litigation and the repeated orders passed by the learned
Tribunal, the respondents have deprived the applicants/petitioners of their right to be considered against the vacancies of Supporting Staff.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the vacancies, which arose due to
cancellation of the selections made pursuant to the aforementioned notification dated 28.12.2013, were in question. This Court takes note of the fact
that in pursuance of the aforesaid interim order dated 03.10.2006 passed by the learned Tribunal, the applicants’ candidature was considered and
the applicants had appeared in the interview, but they could not be appointed as Supporting Staff.
The learned Tribunal has concluded that the case of the applicants/petitioners was considered, in pursuance of the orders passed by it, in the
earlier round of litigation, but since they were not found fit for the selection, therefore, the relief, as prayed for by the applicants/petitioners now,
cannot be granted to them.
Once necessary consideration has been made, as mentioned above, and the rejection of the candidature of the applicants/petitioners is being made
on the basis of the changed criteria for appointment on the post of Skilled Support Staff, and as per recruitment rules, educational qualification required
is Matriculate or equivalent pass, there was no further reason for making any interference so as to grant any relief to the applicants/petitioners.
It is an admitted position that the applicants/petitioners do not qualify as per the new recruitment rules. The vacancies against which the
applicants/petitioners are claiming consideration itself stood cancelled, and thereafter, while the next consideration was made, the applicants/petitioners
became disentitled for such recruitment.
This Court also finds that the aforementioned Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Government of India,
1993 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training), Government of India vide Office
Memorandum dated 10.09.1993, which was only a one time measure, shall also not come to the rescue of the applicants/petitioners, as on the date of
issuance thereof, they were not in service, which was one of the conditions mentioned in the said office memorandum, and thus, the
applicants/petitioners are not entitled to any benefit under the said office memorandum. Moreover, even after consideration of the candidature of the
applicants/petitioners, they were found to be not fulfilling the requisite criteria, and were thus, found to be unfit for the recruitment. This Court, thus,
finds that there is no scope for any consideration left for the applicants/petitioners to be appointed as Supporting Staff, as while consideration of their
candidature, as mentioned hereinabove, they were not found to be having requisite qualification and eligibility for such recruitment, as per the new
recruitment rules and changed criteria.
In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any case for interference to be made out.
Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed. All pending applications also stand dismissed.