SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(Pat) 183

HIGH COURT OF PATNA
S.B. Sinha and R.N. Prasad, JJ.
Hirday Rai & ors.
Sambhu Mandal & ors.
Jagdish Rai & ors.
Widow Kamala Devi & ors.
Deolal Rai & ors.
Widow Ram Kumari Devi & ors.
Shankar Raut & ors.
Ram Deo Ray & ors.
Olindra Ram & ors.
Naresh Prasad & ors.
Ramayan Rai & ors.
Madan Mohan Rai & ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Rajendra Agricultural University & ors. - Respondents in all cases
C.W.J.C. Nos. 12754/93, 4861/93, 4862/93, 5798/93, 6048/93, 6327/93, 7794/93, 8583/ 93, 13032/93, 13055/93, 12/94, 900/94
Decided On : 19.4.1994

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners (in all cases): M/s. Bimlesh Kumar and Sitesh Chandra Mitra.
For the Respondents (in all cases): M/s. Y.V. Giri.

Regularisation of services cannot be a mode of appointment as it would violate Article 309 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:

REGULARISATION OF SERVICES - CASUAL LABOURERS - RAJENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY - NO STATUTORY PROVISION FOR REGULARISATION - NO LEGAL RIGHT TO CONTINUE IN SERVICE - REGULARISATION CANNOT BE A MODE OF APPOINTMENT - ARTICLE 309 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, casual labourers working on daily wages at Rajendra Agriculture University, sought regularisation of their services and a restraint on the University from making appointments based on advertisements. They claimed to have worked for more than 240 days continuously and relied on office orders and certificates as evidence of their service.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioners, being casual labourers, did not have any legal right to continue in service. Regularisation of services cannot be a mode of appointment as it would violate Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The University's Statute did not contain any provision for regularisation of services.

Issues: 1. Whether casual labourers working on daily wages at Rajendra Agriculture University have a legal right to regularisation of their services? 2. Whether regularisation of services can be a mode of appointment?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Casual labourers do not have a legal right to continue in service. 2. Regularisation of services cannot be a mode of appointment as it would violate Article 309 of the Constitution of India.

Final Decision: The writ applications were dismissed. The court directed the University to fill up the vacant posts at an early date and consider the petitioners' cases along with other eligible candidates.

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.

All these writ applications involving common questions of fact and law were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise their services and also for restraining them from making appointment on the basis of advertisement dated 12th October. 1991 and 7th October, 1991. According to the petitioners they have been working on daily wages as casual labourers and as they have completed more than 240 days continuously in the service of the respondents University, they have acquired legal right to get their services regularised.

3. Mr. Bimlesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that University has regularised the services of various persons. Our attention has also been drawn to an office order dated 18.10.1987 as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Learned counsel submitted that they had been called for interview whereafter they have been appointed on various posts in terms of office order dated 8.4.1987 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Our attention has also been drawn to the fact that the Officer-in-charge of Horticultural Research Station has also granted certificate to the effect that the petitioner had been working which are contained in Annexures-4 & 5 series of the writ petition.

4. According to the learned counsel in view of the fact that the petitioners have been working for a long time they are entitled to be appointed on a permanent basis. The learned counsel in support of his aforementioned contention has relied upon a decision of Supreme Court of India in State of Haryana vs. Piyara Singh, reported in A.I.R. 1992-Supreme Court 2130, as also on an unreported decision of the Supreme Court in Baidyanath Mahto and anr. vs. Rajendra Agriculture University & ors. in Civil Appeal No. 3957/90.

5. Mr. Y V. Giri, learned counsel for the University, on the other hand, drew our attention to several orders passed by this Court. Mr. Giri further submitted that Annexure-4 to the writ petition has no application in the instant case inasmuch as in that case the post was advertised and the person concerned stood first. It is not in dispute that there does not exist any provision for regularisation of an employee in Statute of Rajendra Agriculture University. In Paltu Rai v. Rajendra Agriculture University, C.W.J.C. No. 1814/84 and 574/94 disposed of on 18.7.85 the Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.P. Singh (as he then was) held as follows :

"There is nothing on the record to show that any such decision has been taken by the University for there is any statute or regulation which enjoins the University to absorb its casual workers after any specified period of time. In my opinion in the facts and circumstances of the present case it is not possible for this Court to issue any direction in view; of the categorical statement made on behalf of the respondent that the petitioners had been engaged as daily workers and payments are made on daily basis."

6. Yet recently in Kuwar Jee vs. The State of Bihar and ors. C.W.J.C. No. 7033/92 a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 14.2.1994 held as follows:

“In view of the fact that the petitioner was appointed as casual labourer and further has been denied that any junior to the petitioner has been retained in the service, in our opinion, no relief can be granted to the petitioner as prayed for. It is now well settled by various decisions of this Court that regularisation cannot be a mode of appointment. The petitioner as a casual labourer did not derive any legal right so as to entitle him to obtain a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent-University to regularise his services The Respondent-University has further stated that no sanctioned post is available wherein any casual labourer can be absorbed.

The further gr






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top