Back
2006 Supreme(Cal) 776
High Court Of Calcutta
MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA Mr. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR BHATTACHARYA
COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA - Appellant
Versus
SAKTIPADA DAS - Respondent
W. P. C. T. 449 Of 2006
Decided On : 12/08/2006
SAGAR BANDOPADHYAY, Sandip Kumar Bhattacharya
Casual workers who satisfy the conditions for relaxation of age limit at the time of appointment in the substantive post cannot be denied regularization solely on the ground of over-age.
Headnote:
REGULARIZATION OF CASUAL WORKERS - GUIDELINES FOR RECRUITMENT OF CASUAL WORKERS ON DAILY BASIS, 1988 - SECTION 19 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT, 1985 - Relaxation of age limit for regularization of casual workers - Over-aged casual worker - Whether entitled to regularization against substantive post - Whether the Tribunal erred in directing the absorption of the over-aged casual worker.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a casual worker, was not regularized against a substantive post despite working for more than 8 years due to exceeding the prescribed age limit. He approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking absorption in the regular Group-D post. The Tribunal allowed his application, directing the Union of India to consider his case for absorption.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Tribunal's order was justified as the Union of India violated its own guidelines by rejecting the respondent's candidature solely on the ground of over-age. The Court also held that the respondent was similarly placed with two other employees who were regularized, and the Union of India could not challenge the earlier decision of the Tribunal directing their absorption.
Issues: 1. Whether the Union of India was justified in rejecting the respondent's candidature on the ground of over-age. 2. Whether the respondent was similarly placed with the other two employees who were regularized.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Union of India's own guidelines provided for relaxation of the upper age limit for regularization of casual workers who had not exceeded the age limit at the time of initial recruitment. 2. The Tribunal had earlier directed the Union of India to consider the respondent's case for absorption in the same manner as the other two employees, and that decision had attained finality.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Union of India, upholding the Tribunal's order directing the absorption of the respondent in the regular Group-D post.
( 1 ) THIS writ application under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the Union of India and is directed against order dated May 3, 2006 passed by the central Administrative Tribunal Calcutta bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal)by which the said Tribunal allowed an application under Section 19 of the administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 filed by the respondent herein by directing the present appellants to consider the case of the respondent by absorbing him against Group-D post immediately in the light of the observation made in the body of the said order,
( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the filing of this writ-application may be summed up thus :
( 3 ) IN the past, the respondent herein filed an application under Section 19 of the administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 before the tribunal below thereby praying for absorbing him in the regular Group-D post after taking into consideration his service of more than eight years in casual vacancies. The said application was contested by the Union of India and ultimately, the Tribunal by the order dated august 20, 2003 disposed of the said application by directing the Union of India to consider the case of the respondent for regularisation against the available or future group-D vacancy in the same manner in which the cases of two casual workers, namely, Rekha kundu and Bablu Bagani were regularized. The tribunal further directed that till such consideration was made the status quo as regards the service of the respondent would continue. It may not be out of place to mention here that the Union of India has not challenged the said decision and the same has attained finality.
( 4 ) PURSUANT to the direction given by the tribunal as mentioned above, the writ-petitioners herein asked the respondent to appear at the interview and by an order dated february 20, 2004 informed the respondent that he was found to be "not suitable", without however, disclosing any particular reason why he was not suitable,
( 5 ) BEING dissatisfied, the respondent preferred another application under Section 19 of the Act before the Tribunal below thereby giving rise to O. A. No. 693/2004 praying for direction upon the present writ-petitioners for absorbing him in the Group-D post.
( 6 ) THE application was contested by the union of India and according to it, the respondent was found to be "not suitable", and as such, he was appointed and that the two other employees, namely, Rekha Kundu and Bablu bagani were appointed as direct recruit after being successful in the interview and therefore, their cases cannot be equated with the case of the respondent.
( 7 ) THE learned Tribunal below, on consideration of the materials on record, came to the conclusion that the claim of the respondent was justified and it was a fit case for giving relief to the respondent. The Tribunal, thus, allowed the application by directing the writ-petitioners before us to consider the case by absorbing the respondent in Group-D post immediately.
( 8 ) BEING dissatisfied, the Union of India has come up with the present writ-application challenging the decision of the Tribunal below.
( 9 ) MR. Bhattacharya, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ-petitioners has made two fold submission before this Court
( 10 ) FIRST, he was contended that undisputedly, the respondent being overaged on the date of interview, his client did not commit any illegality in rejecting his claim. Mr. Bhattacharya frankly conceded that although no reason was given in the order communicating the respondent about his failure, the real reason was that he had exceeded the age-limit prescribed for recruitment of group-D staff. Such plea was, however, not taken in the Tribunal below and in the order impugned before the Tribunal the writ-petitioners simply described the respondent as not suitable.
( 11 ) SECONDLY, Mr. Bhattacharya contends that it is now settled by the Supreme Court that even i
