AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
By Hon’ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A):
Mr. Jahangir Ganai, Sr. Adv with Mr. Muzaffar Lone for applicants and Mr. Satinder Singh, AAG for respondents are present.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are working for more than five years with respondent departments and were expecting their regularization as per rules but they have been surprised when respondent Nos. 2 and 4, in terms of impugned order bearing No. INF/05 of 2020 dated 04.05.2020, with regard to the implementation of circular No. 30-GAD of 2019 dated 24.05.2019 has issued the impugned order in terms whereof the applicants have been disengaged.
The applicants have filed this original application seeking the following reliefs:
“(i)Quashing the impugned order No. INF/05 of 2020 dated 04.05.2020 issued by the respondent No. 4.
(ii)Direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicants for regularisation as proposed in terms of the scheme formulated by respondent No. 4 and submitted to that of respondent No. 2.”
Ld. Counsel for the applicants submitted that advertisement Notice was issued by the respondents in terms of which online applications were invited from eligible candidates for engagement as Stringers in which post graduation degree or diploma in journalism with minimum two years’ hands-on experience in reporting/editing was prescribed as the eligibility criteria. The advertisement Notice was published in different newspapers on 24.04.2015 and the same was also uploaded on the departmental website. In view of the poor response for the post of Translator, the qualification was relaxed and another notice was issued in different newspapers on 14.05.2015. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 requested respondent No. 2 for constitution of a committee for conducting interviews of eligible candidates which was constituted on 27.05.2015 by Government order No. 09/ID of 2015. The Director was its Chairman and Additional Secretary, Joint Secretary, representatives of Education Multimedia Research Centre and Indian Institute of Mass Communication were Members of that Committee. Thereafter, more than 200 applications were received and respondents decided to conduct aptitude test and viva/voce as the mode of selection in which 80 percent marks were earmarked for aptitude test and 20 percent for the viva/voce on 05.08.2015 via order No. INF/GEN-48-2015. Director Information sent a proposal to the Principal Secretary, Information Department regarding engagement of 25 Reporters on monthly remuneration of Rs. 25,000 per person and 15 Translators on monthly remuneration of Rs.20,000 per person. Thereafter, on 14.08.2015, approval for the engagement of 20 Stringers (10 Reporters and 10 Translators) was conveyed to the Director Information by the Additional Secretary. Applicant Nos. 1 to 6 were engaged as Reporters through communication dated 02.12.2015 and applicant Nos. 7 to 12 were engaged through order dated 23.06.2016 as Reporters.
He further submits that under communication No. INF/GEN-46-PTQ/2016-417 dated 16.05.2016, Director Information sent a request to Principal Secretary that empanelment of Cameramen/Videographers had remained undecided, and in order to access the technical knowledge of the candidates, a committee be constituted and directions for issuance of the necessary action may be given in response to communication No. ID-ESTT-18-2016 dated 23.02.2017. Subsequently, the eligible candidates were put to notice for technical validity test and viva/voce and after that a merit list was prepared and vide communication dated 23.02.2017, applicant nos. 13 to 19 were engaged as Cameramen and thereafter on the request of Director Information, empanelment of 4 more Stringers was approved and consequently applicant No. 20 to 23 were engaged as Reporters on 09.06.2017.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant further submitted that applicants were engaged to cope up with the acute shortage of staff in the department of information. The applicants were performing their duties efficiently and had brought a lot of professionalism in the functioning of the PR wing of the department, thus, in terms of the communication No. INF/ESTT-200/2018/152-54 dated 09.04.2018, Director Information and PR wrote a letter to the Secretary to the Government for considering a roadmap for regularization of the applicants. In response, respondent No. 2 conveyed to the Director Information to come up with the scheme for regularization of the applicants under communication No. INF/ESTT-200/2017/2683 dated 03.10.2018. The Director submitted the proposed scheme for absorption of the applicants. Ld. Counsel for the applicant further submitted that the Director Information pointed out the facts that department was able to implement several important programmes due to the efforts of the applicants and the applicants have gained experience and acumen which has proved highly beneficial for dissemination of information and for highlighting the Government's functioning and for countering anti-Government reportage. Instead of regularization of the applicants, in terms of the impugned order No. INF/05 of 2020 dated 04.05.2020, a disengagement order of Stringers was given to them with regard to the implementation of Circular No. 30-GAD of 2019 dated 24.05.2019 in which the following reasons for ban on engagement of casual /seasonal /ad hoc /consolidated /contractual /need based /daily rated workers was given as under:-
(a)Any person appointed on Adhoc/Contractual/ consolidated/temporary base after the imposition of ban of such engagement (i.e. on or after 29 April 2010) in contravention of the provisions of the Act shall forthwith seize to continue.
(b)Any person engaged as casual/seasonal/need based workers after imposition of ban of such engagement (i.e. on or after 17.03.2015) without special approval of the competent authority or without following due procedure shall also seize to continue forthwith.
Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the case of the applicants is not covered by the direction issued in terms of the Circular dated 24.05.2019. He stated that the applicants had not been engaged without approval of the competent authority. On the contrary, the applicants were initially engaged after due approval was accorded by the Government. Engagement of the applicants was made not only after following all due procedures but they were engaged on the basis of their merit. The selection process was undertaken strictly in accordance with the Constitutional mandate as enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, with regard to public employment.
Ld. Counsel for the applicants concluded by stating that applicants were engaged on the basis of regular selection with the approval of the competent authority. They have ensured that there is no default in dissemination of the information with regard to functioning of the Government and for the same reason Director Information had projected that the disengagement of the applicants would jeopardize the departmental functioning and hamper information dissemination of the Government. He submitted that the impugned disengagement order is not only harsh but also unjust and unfair and as such is required to be quashed. Ld. Counsel for the applicants further indicated that an equally important facet of the right to live is the right to livelihood. Regarding regularization of the applicants, he submitted that most of the similarly placed employees, after being initially engaged for a specific period, have been subsequently absorbed by the respondents. The applicants and those who have already been regularized belong to the same class. It is trite law that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike in privileges conferred and there cannot be any discrimination between one person and the other.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents appeared and denied the claim of the applicants stating that due to acute shortage of human resources, the department had engaged the applicants purely on need basis in a fair and transparent manner. On the basis of representations submitted by the applicants, Director Information recommended the case for regularization of the applicants to the administrative department but the same was not accepted by the authority. He further submitted that the recommendations in no way entitle the applicants for regularization and would not confer any right to be absorbed in regular service. The petitioners are bound by the terms and conditions of their engagement, which were purely need based and cannot deny the facts of the engagement order. Learned counsel for the respondents further stated as under:-
“That the issue regarding regularization and permanent absorption are settled by the Constitutional Bench of India in the case of State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi held as under:-
“There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily water, temporary or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. As has been held by this Court, they cannot be said to be holders of the posts, since regular appointments could be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The right to be treated equally with other employees employed on daily wager, temporary or on contractual basis cannot be claimed for equal treatment with those who were regularly employed. That would be treating un-equals as equals. We cannot also be relied on to claim of right to be observed in service even though they have never been selected in terms of the relevant recruitment rules.”
That the engagement of the petitioners were purely on contractual/ need basis and in the light of the terms and conditions of their engagement the petitioners cannot claim any right or interest of permanent service in the government. Having accepted these conditions, the petitioners cannot now turn around and challenge the same as being arbitrary, unjust, irrational and contrary to the provisions of ARticles 14 & 16.
This view also finds force in the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of INdia & Ors. vs. Brahma Dutt Tripathi, AIR 2006 SC 3244 and this view has already been expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi and Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1, by holding that temporary employees, such employees, do not have any right to regular service or public employment further temporary, contractual, casual ad hoc or daily wage. Public employment must be deemed to be accepted by the employee concerned fully knowing the nature of it and consequences following it.
That after having accepted contractual appointment on need basis, the petitioners are estopped from challenging the terms of their appointment. Thus, the petitioners having applied for the post -temporary engagement on need basis and having accepted the appointment with all its conditions and being a beneficiary of the selection process cannot now turn around and challenge the same as being arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution.”
Ld. Counsel for the applicants further submitted that the department is still in need of the services of the applicants and applicants do not fall in that criteria prescribed under circular No. 30-GAD of 2019 dated 24.09.2019 in which Government has directed not to continue such need based workers whose appointment had been done without specific approval of the competent authority or without following due procedure. Hence, the impugned order may be quashed and the respondents may also be directed to regularize the services of the applicants.
We have heard learned counsels for both the parties and gone through the official records submitted by the department.
The contents of the impugned order dated 04.05.2020 clearly show that the contention of the applicants that they are not covered under the orders of GAD contained in Circular No.30-GAD of 2019 dated 24.05.2019 was duly communicated by the Director Information, specifically seeking clarification whether the engagement of these Stringers (Reporters, Translators Cameramen & Hard Editor Films) falls under the purview of the circular instructions issued vide No.30-GAD of 2019 dated 24.05.2019 or not. In response to this, GAD stated as under:-
“Whereas, after examining the matter, the Administrative Department vide letter No.ID/Estt/30/2015 dated 30.04.2020 (received on 04.05.2020 FN) has communicated in this office that “the Stringers engaged temporarily by the Information department against non-existing posts should be disengaged forthwith. The instructions issued by the GAD by the circular No.30-GAD of 2019 dated 24.05.2019 be strictly followed by all the departments.”
It is, therefore, clear that the contention of the applicants that their case is not covered by the order dated 24.05.2019 ibid has categorically been rejected by the respondents. We do not find the stand taken by the respondents to be correct. It is borne out by the records that necessary approval had been obtained for the need based engagement of the applicants and they had also undergone the prescribed procedure for selection. Hence, they cannot be said to be covered under the conditions mentioned in the letter dated 24.05.2019. Moreover, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicants had brought to our notice that there are a large number of existing as well as anticipated vacancies of the posts held by the applicants and the Administration is hard pressed to fill up these posts as the work is suffering badly on this account.
Taking an overall view of the facts and the arguments put forth by the learned counsels for the parties, we are of the considered view that the case of the applicants does not fall within the purview of the letter dated 24.05.2019. Hence, we quash the impugned order bearing No. INF/05 of 2020 dated 04.05.2020. However, the applicants cannot claim their re-engagement as a matter of right. We, therefore, direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicants for their re-engagement, in case it is administratively expedient to fill up these posts on a need based/temporary basis. The case of the applicants would obviously be considered in preference to anyone else, for the purpose of filling up of the said posts on a need based/temporary basis.
With the above directions, the instant OA stands disposed of.
No order as to costs.