AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Banumathi, J.—Regularisation of service in public employment, Directorate of Madurai Kamaraj University as Data Entry Operators
arise for consideration in these writ petitions.
In consideration of the necessity of appointing Computer Operators for the Computer Centre in the Directorate of Distance Education and for
computerisation of the Directorate of Distance Education (DDE), the Syndicate of the University at its meeting has approved the engagement of
Computer Operators on temporary basis. On the recommendation of the Syndicate Committee and with the approval of the Vice Chancellor, 10
Data Entry Operators, including the Petitioners were appointed, on consolidated pay of Rs. 2,000/- per month. After conducting an Entrance Test
and interview and also following the roaster system, the Petitioners and other Computer Operators were engaged in three spells of time from
21.06.1999 to 10.09.99 (82 days), 15.09.99 to 10.12.99 (87 days) and 16.12.99 to 29.02.2000 (76 days).
The case of the Petitioners is that the Petitioners were not paid salary from January and February 2000 and without assigning any reasons, their
services have been terminated. Contending that they have worked for 245 days, the Petitioners have filed the Writ Petitions seeking issuance of a
Writ of Mandamus to regularise their services as Data Entry Operators pursuant to the engagement Memo No. DDE/Estt/F&P/99 dt. 15.06.99.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that the Petitioners were appointed after conducting an Entrance Test and Interview and
also following the roaster system and the Petitioners having been appointed as like any other regular employees and their services cannot be
terminated without assigning any reasons. It is also submitted that since the Petitioners have been regularly appointed after conducting the Entrance
Test and Interview, their service ought to be regularised.
Drawing the attention of the Court to the Memo No. DDE/Estt/F&P/99 dt. 15.06.99 under which, the Petitioners were engaged as Data Entry
Operators, the learned Counsel for the Respondents has submitted that even in the letter of engagement it has been clearly stated that the
engagement is purely temporary and liable for termination without assigning any reasons. The learned Counsel for the Respondents has also
submitted that the Petitioners have accepted the engagement very well knowing about the temporary nature of their engagement and to that effect,
they have also given a Declaration while so they should not claim any permanency and no direction could be issued for regularisation of the service.
In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the Respondents has placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Appeal
(Civil) 3981 of 2006 [Surendra Prasad Tewari v. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and Ors. ], wherein the Supreme Court
has elaborately refered Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, .
Even at the outset it is to be pointed out that the order of engagement of the Petitioners as Data Entry Operators which was made clear "" that
the above engagement is purely temporary and liable for termination at any time without assigning any reason or prior notice"".
In the same memo, it is stated that the candidates will have to give an undertaking to the above effect at the time of joining the duty. In the
counter affidavit, it is stated that the Petitioners and all the others who were engaged have given a Declaration as follows:
I hereby undertake that I will not claim permanency or preferential treatment while filing up any post in the University.
The Petitioners and other Computer Operators have been engaged purely on temporary basis. They were quite aware that their service was
liable for termination at any time without assigning any reason and prior notice and there could be no claim for permanency or any preferential
treatment for the said post or any other post in the Respondent University.
No doubt, the Petitioners and other Data Entry Operators have been engaged for three spells of time for a period totaling 245 days as noted
earlier. Though they worked for 245 days, their service was not a continuous one. Working in different spells does not confer upon them any right
for regularisation of service themselves, all the more so, when the Petitioners have been engaged purely on temporary basis.
Holding that the Courts cannot encourage the appointments which are made outside the constitutional scheme, and it is improper for the Courts
to give any direction for regularisation of the person who has not been appointed by following the procedure laid down under Articles 14, 16 and
309 of the Constitution, in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, the Supreme Court has held thus:
When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a
proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or
contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the
post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in cases concerned, in consultation with the Public Service
Commission.
In the said case before the Supreme Court, the Appellant has continued in service for 14 years because of the interim order granted by the
High Court. In the aforesaid case, the Constitution Bench has observed that merely because an employee has been appointed on adhoc basis there
cannot be an order of Court for regularisation of the service and the Court has described the said direction of the Court as ""litigious employment
and that they would not be entitled any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service.
Following the Judgment in Umadevi''s case, in the decision in Appeal (Civil) 3981 of 2006 [Surendara Prasad Tewari v. Uttar Pradesh Rajya
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and Ors.] dated 08.09.2006, the Supreme Court has held as follows:
In view of the clear and unambiguous constitutional scheme, the courts cannot countenance appointments to public office which have been made
against the constitutional scheme. In the backdrop of constitutional philosophy, it would be improper for the courts to give directions for
regularisation of services of the person who is working either as daily-wager, ad hoc employee, probationer, temporary or contractual employee,
not appointed following the procedure laid down under Articles 14, 16 and 309 of the Constitution. In our constitutional scheme, there is no room
for back door entry in the matter of public employment.
In view of the clear enunciation of the law laid down in the Judgment of the Supreme Court, the Petitioners are not entitled to any direction for
regularisation of their service.
In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
In the counter affidavit, the Respondents have stated that the salary for all Data Entry Operators (including the Petitioners) was not paid for the
month of January and February 2000. The Respondents are directed to pay the salary to the Petitioners for the month of January 2000 and
February 2000, if they have worked, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.