2005 Supreme(Gau) 814

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (AGARTALA BENCH)
R.B. Misra, J.
Pritish Ranjan Roy and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of Tripura and Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 452 of 2003
Decided On: 03.02.2005

Headnote:

The writ petition filed by the petitioners, who were deployed as Contingent Workers (in Group-C category) in the Panchayat Department as Contingent Workers along with 1666 persons in between October and November 1990, was dismissed. The petitioners were initially deployed at the rate of Rs. 24 per day, however, subsequently they were deployed in different Departments of the State Government at the enhance rate of Rs. 65 per day from 1.1.2003 and for such purpose even budgetary allocations were made from 1994-95 to 2003-2004. The petitioners contended that 26 similarly situated Contingent Workers deployed prior to the year 1990 were given regular appointments to the posts of Panchayat Secretaries with regular pay scale of Rs. 930-24, vide order dated 20.10.1992 without obtaining concurrence even taking of Finance Department. On enquiry, it has been reveals that in reference to Memorandum No. F.10(16)-Fin(G)/99 dated 22.3.2001 the question of regularisation of Daily Rated Workers/Contingent Workers (Group-D and Group-C) came up for consideration by the State Government where 10% of the total vacancies of Group-C and Group-D posts arising in a particular year for direct recruitment were to be filled up from amongst the existing Daily Rated Workers/Contingent Workers, like the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the Memorandum dated 22.3.2001 is unreasonable and unjustified as the same has imposed arbitrary restrictions specifying only 10% of the vacancies for a particular year for direct recruitment and by limiting such percentage of recruitment.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were deployed as Contingent Workers (in Group-C category) in the Panchayat Department as Contingent Workers along with 1666 persons in between October and November 1990. Initially, they were deployed at the rate of Rs. 24 per day, however, subsequently, they were deployed in different Departments of the State Government at the enhance rate of Rs. 65 per day from 1.1.2003 and for such purpose even budgetary allocations were made from 1994-95 to 2003-2004. The petitioners contended that 26 similarly situated Contingent Workers deployed prior to the year 1990 were given regular appointments to the posts of Panchayat Secretaries with regular pay scale of Rs. 930-24, vide order dated 20.10.1992 without obtaining concurrence even taking of Finance Department. On enquiry, it has been reveals that in reference to Memorandum No. F.10(16)-Fin(G)/99 dated 22.3.2001 the question of regularisation of Daily Rated Workers/Contingent Workers (Group-D and Group-C) came up for consideration by the State Government where 10% of the total vacancies of Group-C and Group-D posts arising in a particular year for direct recruitment were to be filled up from amongst the existing Daily Rated Workers/Contingent Workers, like the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the Memorandum dated 22.3.2001 is unreasonable and unjustified as the same has imposed arbitrary restrictions specifying only 10% of the vacancies for a particular year for direct recruitment and by limiting such percentage of recruitment.

Finding of the Court:

The writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed. The court held that the petitioners were deployed initially not against any created vacancies or posts without notifying or intimating employment exchange or advertisement, without conducting Selection by Constituting Committee or interview and without observing norms of reservation. A State before offering public service to a person must comply with the constitutional requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution along with reservation policy. All actions of the State must conform to the constitutional requirements. The Contingent Workers are not holder of civil post and in absence of post or vacancy or a statutory provision or rule or specific Scheme they would not be entitled to regularisation or to be paid equal salary to that of regular employees of the State. No material has been brought for and on behalf of the petitioners where by the Scheme dated 22.3.2001 could be said to be unreasonable as the same is for the benefit of contingent workers themselves and any regular recruitment cannot be held to be illegal unless it is shown to be contrary to the relevant provisions of Act or Rule or in derogation to spirit of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Issues: Whether the petitioners could make valid claim for regularisation of their services.

Ratio Decidendi: Regularisation cannot be claimed as a matter of right. An illegal appointment cannot be legalized by taking recourse to regularisation. What can be regularized is an irregularity and not an illegality. The Constitutional Scheme which the country has adopted does not contemplate any backdoor appointment. The petitioners were deployed initially not against any created vacancies or posts without notifying or intimating employment exchange or advertisement, without conducting Selection by Constituting Committee or interview and without observing norms of reservation. A State before offering public service to a person must comply with the constitutional requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution along with reservation policy. All actions of the State must conform to the constitutional requirements. The Contingent Workers are not holder of civil post and in absence of post or vacancy or a statutory provision or rule or specific Scheme they would not be entitled to regularisation or to be paid equal salary to that of regular employees of the State.

Final Decision: The writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed.