Pramoda Kumar Sethi vs Chairman, CESU,Orissa and others

In W.P.(C) No.25797 of 2017 there is defect pointed out by the office( defect no.11). The said defect pointed by the Stamp Reporter is

ignored.

In both the writ petitions the impugned order being the same, as such the same has been heard together and are being disposed of by the

common order.

In both the writ petitions, the order dated 25.6.2011 as contained in Order No.21606(2) in W.P.(C) No.25792 of 2017 and Order

No.21593(2) in W.P.(C) No.25794 of 2017 is under challenge whereby and where under the authority while rejecting the representations of the

petitioners has denied to regularize the period of contract service retrospectively from the date of joining as Junior Supervisor(Revenue).

Brief facts of the case of the petitioners is that in the light of the advertisement published on 2.9.2002 they being the applicants have been denied

to be appointed as Management Trainee(Diploma Engineer- Electrical), however they have been appointed as Junior Supervisor(Revenue). The

petitioners have approached this Court by filing writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.14 of 2007 and 412 of 2007 and a Coordinate Bench of this

Court while disposing of the writ petitions on 17.12.2011 has directed the opposite parties to consider their representations for regularization of

services from the year 2003 but the claim has been rejected vide order dated 25.6.2011 which is under challenge in these writ petitions, on the

ground that the petitioners who ought to have been selected and engaged as Management Trainee , but denied their appointment, however,

subsequently they have been appointed as Junior Supervisor(Revenue) on contract basis, hence they have been working as Junior Supervisor

(Revenue) on contract basis but the authority has come out with another advertisement dated 2.6.2005 inviting applications from Diploma

Engineers(Electrical) for recruitment to the post of Management Trainees. The petitioners have applied in which they have found to be successful

and accordingly they have been engaged vide letter issued in this regard dated 6.5.2007 and 12.5.2008 respectively so far it relates to W.P.(C)

No.25792 of 2017 and W.P.(C) No.25794 of 2017. The petitioners started discharging their duties. They have made representation on

31.1.2011 and 7.3.2011 respectively to the Chairman-cum- C.E.O., CESU requesting before the authorities to regularize the period of service

which they have rendered as Junior Supervisor(Revenue) on contract basis by counting it towards their length of service of Management Trainee

keeping in view the fact that similar benefit has been extended to 33 numbers of Junior Supervisor(Revenue) whose services were regularized as

Management Trainee vide office order dated 19.5.2003. The claim of the petitioners has been rejected vide order dated 25.6.2011 against which

these writ petitions have been filed.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length, it is evident from the materials available on record that the petitioners have been

appointed as Junior Supervisor (Revenue) on contract basis and after their fresh engagement as Management Trainee they have filed writ petitions

being W.P.(C) No.14 of 2007 and W.P.(C) No.412 of 2007 for regularization of their period of service. This Court while disposing of the writ

petition has directed the authorities to take decision in accordance with law and in terms thereof the authorities have taken decision rejecting the

claim of the petitioners which are impugned here.

It is evident from the material available on record that the authorities have come out with advertisement on 2. 9.2005 inviting applications to fill up

the post of Management Trainee( Diploma Engineers- Electrical) in which the petitioners and others have participated in the selection process but

the petitioners could not have been declared successful, as such not selected as Management Trainee. The petitioners have been engaged on

contract basis as Junior Supervisor(Revenue) and could not have been regularized as Management Trainee(Diploma Engineer-Electrical) against

regular vacancies.

The petitioners thereafter had participated in the new selection process in terms of the advertisement dated 2.6.2005 inviting applications from

Diploma Engineers(Electrical) for the post of Management Trainee(Diploma Engineer-Electrical). The Diploma Engineers(Electrical) who were

continuing in the CESCO ( now CESU) as Junior Supervisor(Revenue) on contract basis also submitted their applications for selection as

Management Trainee(Diploma Engineers-Electrical) along with other candidates. The advertisement was challenged jointly as well as individually

by all the 43 Diploma holders who had joined as Junior Supervisor(Revenue) purely on contract basis including the petitioners challenging the

action of the management in not regularizing their contract service and calling upon them to face interview again along with fresh candidates.

It is evident from the materials available on record that the petitioners were not recruited in regular manner since they have not qualified in the

interview for the post of Management Trainee in terms of the advertisement 2.9.2002, they have simply been engaged as Junior

Supervisor(Revenue) on contract basis. The authorities have received applications for the post of Management Trainee(Diploma Engineers-

Electrical) who were shortlisted after giving weightage to the marks secured in HSC & Diploma and experience in power sector. Accordingly, 135

numbers of shortlisted candidates were called for interview which includes 32 numbers of Junior Supervisors(Revenue). Condonation of age was

allowed in case of Junior Supervisor(Revenue) who had crossed the maximum age limit of 32 years. Interview was conducted from 8.1.2007 to

18.1.2007, 32 numbers of Junior Supervisors(Revenue) including the petitioners got selected along with fresh candidates and were appointed as

Management Trainee(Diploma Engineers-Electrical), accordingly they have joined service as Management Trainee(Diploma Engineers-Electrical)

on 8.5.2007 and 12.5.2008 respectively. It is further evident from the materials available on record that both the petitioners who are within 43

Junior Supervisors(Revenue) were purely on contractual service since they have never been selected in the interview conducted in the year 2002

rather they have been engaged, hence seeking regularization of the contract period cannot be accepted for the reason that they have not been

selected under regular recruitment process rather they have been declared unsuccessful. However, on humanitarian consideration they have been

kept in service on contract basis in the post of Junior Supervisor(Revenue). It is settled that the period of regularization of the past service rendered

in the post can only be taken into consideration if the candidate is at par with other candidates who have participated in the selection process and

became successful, but here in the instant case, the petitioners have been given chance to be considered for the post of Management

Trainee(Diploma Engineers-Electrical) in the year 2002, they could have competed with the candidates who have been appointed in terms of the

advertisement published in the year 2002 but not competed. The petitioners are seeking regularization of the period rendered by them which they

have served as Junior Supervisor(Revenue) on contract basis but they cannot be given any benefit in this regard by giving them parity with the

selected candidates who have participated in the selection process conducted in the year 2002 and declared successful in the said selection

process, while on the other hand the petitioners have been declared unsuccessful.

This Court, further taking into consideration the fact that if the said contract period will be counted towards the length of service for the subsequent

post, then it will amount to reviewing the decision of the selection committee which had been constituted to select candidates in terms of the

advertisement published in the year 2002 and declared them unsuccessful and if the said period will be allowed to be counted it would amount to

shifting the date of their appointment which this Court cannot do sitting under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this Court,

after considering this fact, is of the considered view that the petitioners have failed to make out a case on merit for extending relief as they have

prayed in these two writ petitions.

It is further evident that the impugned order was passed in the month of June,2011 and the petitioners have approached this Court in the month of

December,2017, as such it is after lapse of almost more than six and half years without any explanation of delay for consideration of their cases for

counting the period of service which has occurred in the year 2002 these writ petitions have been filed and as such the writ petitions are deserve to

be dismissed on account of delay and latches. On this ground also, this Court is of the view that the petitioners'' cases is not worthy to be

considered.

In view of the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated herein above, the writ petitions are fit to be

dismissed and accordingly the same are dismissed.