The main legal point established in the judgment is that the eligibility for regularization of services is contingent upon the nature of engagement and possession of required qualifications for regular appointment.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)--This petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction thereby:

a) setting aside and quashing the impugned order dated 17.04.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 2211/2015 titled as Smt. Anita & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors.', and

b) directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioners to their posts held by them prior to their illegal termination on 27.04.2018 and further to regularize the services of all the petitioners in their respective posts, from the date of their initial appointments with all the consequential benefits, in the interest of justice.

c) issue the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction or order, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the favour of the petitioners and against the respondents."

2. In effect, the petitioners are challenging the order dated April 17, 2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi (`Tribunal', for short) in Original Application No.2211/2015 (`OA', for short) whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the OA filed by the petitioners herein by stating in paragraphs 14 and 15 as under:

"14. In the present case, I find that these applicants have not been engaged against regular vacancies. Applicant Nos. 1, 2 & 3 have been engaged as Safaiwalis for just 4 hours per day, whereas applicant Nos. 4 & 5 have been engaged for similar duration as Mali/Khallasi. Their engagement cannot be called as a `full time engagement'. They have also not completed 240 days of full work in a year. Hence, I am of the view that these applicants are not eligible for grant of the benefits of the dictum in Umadevi's case (supra). The judgments relied upon by the applicants do not apply to the instant case on the issue of facts. As noted hereinabove, one of the prime conditions for regularization is that the irregular appointments should have been made against sanctioned posts. The applicants have failed to adduce any material to indicate that their engagement had been against regular posts.

15. In the conspectus of discussions in the preceding paragraphs, I do not find any merit in this O.A. The O.A., being bereft of merit, is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs."

3. Suffice to state, the petitioner Nos.1, 2 & 3 were appointed as Safaiwali in the years 1993, 1998 and 1999 respectively, whereas the petitioner Nos.4 & 5 were appointed as Mali and Khallasi in the years 2000 and 2004 respectively in Central Water Commission (CWC), on ad-hoc basis and they were to be paid lump sum monthly emoluments. The claim of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that their services be regularized in terms of the DoP&T OM dated December 11, 2006 issued in compliance of the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Umadevi & Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 and State of Karnataka & Others v. M.L. Kesari & Others, (2010) 9 SCC 247, and on the basis of the judgment of a Single Judge of this Court in the case of Rajender Singh v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 8200/2011 decided on December 11, 2014.

4. It is their case that they have been praying for regularization in service and have submitted their individual representations but no action has been taken on such representations by the respondents. The Tribunal has rejected the OA by stating as under:

"11. The applicants are seeking their regularization in service in accordance with the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in Umadevi's case (supra). For better appreciation, the relevant portion from Umadevi's case is extracted below:

"44. Onex aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. NA