2002 Supreme(Del) 1610

High Court Of Delhi
JAIDEV - Appellant
Versus
INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY (IGNOU),ELECTRONIC MEDIA PRODUCTION CENTRE - Respondent
L.P.A. 17 of 2002
Decided On : 10/11/2002

Headnote:

MADAN B. LOKUR - [KEYWORD] - SUBJECT - [ACT SECTION LIST] - [SUMMARY]

Fact of the Case:

The Appellant, in an appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent, challenges the correctness of a judgement and order dated 14th December, 2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in a batch of writ petitions. The facts ( 2 ) THE Appellant is said to be a graduate and a qualified Stenographer. Sometime in June/july, 1996 he applied for the post of a stenographer/typist with the Electronic Media Production Center (EMPC for short) of the Indira Gandhi National Open University (hereinafter called 1gnou ). He was duly selected and joined the EMPC as a Junior assistant cum Typist on 8th July, 1996. He says that he was not given any appointment letter but worked on daily wages. He continued working as a junior Assistant cum Typist or a Stenographer, initially on daily wages and later, on a short-term contract basis, till 15th June, 1998 when the last contract came to an end. Even thereafter he continued working in the same post since he was expecting an extension of the contract. However, when he felt that his services might not be continued, he filed CW No. 3122 of 1998 in this Court praying, inter alia, for regularization of his services in the post of Stenographer or to continue his services as such till his services are regularized. The Appellant also prayed for grant of equal pay for equal work with effect from 11th November, 1996 when he was appointed as a Stenographer for the first time on a contract.

Finding of the Court:

The learned Single Judge has found that: ". . . THE method of recruitment, as laid down in the said recruitment rules, was not followed while engaging the petitioners either on daily wage basis or on contract basis as against the aforesaid posts. Therefore, the only conclusion which is irresistible is that their initial appointment to the said posts was de hors the recruitment rules. When the petitioners were initially appointed they did not go through the rigour of the said recruitment rules prescribed and their suitability was considered only to the limited extent for the purpose of their daily wage/contract appointment. " ( 16 ) AS regards regularization of persons appointed de hors the recruitment rules, the learned Single Judge concluded: "no person who is appointed de hors the rales can be ordered to be regularized straightaway without going through the rigours of the selection/ recruitment process as laid down in the recruitment rules. " ( 17 ) LATER in the judgement, the learned Judge reiterated this in the following words: "the consideration that a person appointed de hors the Recruitment Rules cannot be ordered to be straightway regularized without following the rigorous (sic) of recruitment/selection is based on the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, reference to some of which is made herein before. That being the settled position of law, no deviation thereto is permitted and could be allowed. " ( 18 ) THE learned Single Judge also found that since all the writ petitioners had accepted their contractual appointment, which contained a clause that they would have no claim for a regular appointment, they were bound by the principle of waiver and estoppel. The writ petitioners, therefore, could not claim regularization. It was also held mat nothing had been shown or produced to indicate that the conditions of the contract were void or arbitrary.

Issues: 1. Whether the initial recruitment of the Appellants was illegal or a back-door entry. 2. Whether the Appellants are entitled to be regularized in the posts occupied by them disregarding the recruitment rules. 3. Whether the Appellants can be given some preferential treatment in the matter of obtaining regular employment.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The initial recruitment of the Appellants was not illegal or a back-door entry. 2. The Appellants are not entitled to be regularized in the posts occupied by them disregarding the recruitment rules. 3. The Appellants can be given some preferential treatment in the matter of obtaining regular employment.

Final Decision: The appeals are disposed of in the terms given above.