Recognition of a recognized selection process, continuous service, and existence of sanctioned posts support the claim for regularisation, and exploitation of labor is not permissible under the law.

Three petitioners have joined together in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the primary contention and claim relating to regularisation of their service.

2. The facts projected in the petition are narrated briefly as hereunder.

3. The petitioners are having the qualification to be appointed as Graduate Teachers. The erstwhile Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Limited (HFCL) was having a School in its campus at Namrup and pursuant to a recruitment drive, the names of the petitioners which were enrolled with the concerned Employment Exchange were forwarded. Pursuant to such forwarding, in the year 1994, the petitioners were appointed, however for a limited period of 40 days. It is the case of the petitioners that such appointments were extended from time to time and as on date, the petitioners have completed more than 30 years of service. Subsequently, the duration of the appointment was enhanced from 40 days to 6 (six) months. The issue regarding regularisation of their service was taken up by the petitioners through the Regional Labour Commissioner, Dibrugarh in the year 2014 and there was a proposal to the Management to fill up the existing permanent post from the enlisted ad-hoc teachers if they fulfil the required education qualification. It is contended that no action was taken pursuant to such recommendation. In the meantime, the HFCL was declared sick and under the aegis of the BIFR, a new company was incorporated namely, Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Limited (BVFCL) which took over the unit at Namrup w.e.f from 05.04.2002. The matter was again taken up before the Regional Labour Commissioner, even after which no steps have been taken for their regularisation. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C)/06/2017 which however was withdrawn on 06.09.2018 with liberty to file afresh and accordingly the present petition has been filed.

4. I have heard Shri R.P. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri S. Dihingia, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Shri A. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 8. Shri S.S. Roy, learned C.G.C. is also present.

5. Shri R.P. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, by referring to an inter office memo of the erstwhile HFCL dated 27.09.1991 has submitted that the said communication was with regard to the Revised Sanctioned Post and in the summary attached thereto, the Revised Sanctioned Strength for teachers was given as 117. He submits that the communications issued by the HFCL to the petitioners on 12.11.1993 would establish that their names were sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Namrup for appearing in an interview before the Selection Committee on 02.12.1993 in the office premises of the Corporation. The petitioners were also directed to bring with them the relevant Degrees, Diploma Certificates and other testimonials including proof of age qualification, experience etc. It is submitted that pursuant to such selection process, the petitioners were appointed in the year 1994 which however was for a period of 40 days. The petitioners were also given a certain employee number. As the appointments were limited by time and had to be extended from time to time, the matter was raised before the Regional Labour Commissioner, Dibrugarh pursuant to which a resolution was adopted on 05.09.2014 wherein certain recommendations were made including the requirement to fill up existing permanent post lying vacant from the ad-hocteachers which however was not done.

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the continuation of the petitioners for a period of more than 30 years, who otherwise meet all the requisite qualifications and had entered into the service as teachers through a selection process cannot be denied the benefits of regularisation as that would amount to exploitation of labour. It is also contended that the initial appointment, though termed to be ad-hoc would not