Fixed Tenure Employees lack an automatic right to regularization and must follow established recruitment processes; public employment requires adherence to Article 14 ensuring fair competition.

JUDGMENT

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

a. Pass an order issuing a writ of certiorari quashing advertisement no.EESL/0320/17 dated 15-10-2019 by the Respondent no. 1 i.e. EESL with all its consequences.

b. Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondent No.1 i.e. EESL to absorb the petitioners in regular positions after declaring the results of the interviews held between June 24 and June 26, 2019 and also non executive petitioners on the basis of ACR.

c. Pass such order or further orders as may deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of case."

2. At the outset, I may state that this petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated October 12, 2020. The said order was challenged by the petitioners through an Intra-Court appeal being LPA 307/2020. The Division Bench has decided the LPA by remanding the matter with regard to prayer `b' of the petition. The relevant portion of the order of the Division Bench reads as under:

"13. We may in this context notice that the petitioners, in the writ petition, though have also claimed the relief of regularisation but interestingly, not independently, but "after declaring the results of the interviews held between June, 24 and 26, 2019". We have enquired from the counsel for the appellants, whether the said interviews undertaken by the writ petitioners were pursuant to the impugned advertisement.

14. The counsel for the appellants states that the said interviews were not held as part of the recruitment under the impugned advertisement but in pursuance to the proposal for absorption of the fixed tenure employees, earlier undertaken by the respondent EESL vis-a-vis the writ petitioners.

15. We also find that the Single Judge, in paragraph 3 of the judgment, has also referred to the interviews for regularisation but not dealt with the same. We are of the view that only the first relief claimed in the writ petition, of impugning the advertisement, could have been held to be barred by delay and laches and not the relief of regularisation, since the writ petitioners continued to be in the employment, though fixed tenure, of the respondent EESL and remained entitled to seek regularisation.

16. The said aspect having not been dealt with by the Single Judge, we have enquired from the counsels, whether they consent to our considering the said aspect for the first time in appeal.

17. While the counsel for the appellants and the other petitioners consents, the senior counsel for the respondent EESL, under instructions, states that since the writ petition was dismissed on the very first date, no counter affidavit was filed and opportunity to file counter affidavit be given and the matter be remanded to the Single Judge for consideration of the second relief.

18. The appeal, to that extent is accordingly allowed, without disturbing the judgment of the Single Judge to the extent dismissing the writ petition as barred by delay and laches qua the first relief of impugning the recruitment advertisement dated 15th October, 2019. The writ petition is remanded to the Single Judge, for adjudication in accordance with law, of the second relief claimed in the writ petition."

Accordingly, I proceed to decide the prayer `b' of the writ petition.

3. It is the case of the petitioners and so contended by Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein that they are