Temporary employees cannot claim regularization without adherence to established recruitment norms, enforcing constitutional equality in public employment.

JUDGMENT :

KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.

1. Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. B. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Dihingia, learned counsel for the private respondent nos. 1 to 12 in W.A. 242/2024. None appeared on call for the respondent nos. 13 and 14.

2. The respondent nos. 1 to 12 in this intra-court appeal are the writ petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 6558/2023. The Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Govt. of India, Department of Fertilizers, proforma respondent no. 13 was arrayed as respondent no. 1 in the writ petition. The Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Human Resource, proforma respondent no. 14 herein, was arrayed as respondent no. 9 in the writ petition. The appellant in this appeal was arrayed as respondent no. 1 in the writ petition. The officials of the appellant, who were arrayed as respondent nos. 3 to 8 in the writ petition are not arrayed as respondents and/or proforma respondents in this appeal.

3. In brief, the case of the said respondents in the writ petition is that they were initially appointed as contractual teachers at the Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Limited Higher Secondary School, Namrup (hereinafter referred to as BVFCLHS School for brevity). It was projected that the said school was established by Namrup Unit of the erstwhile Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. (HFCL for brevity), a public sector undertaking under the Department of Fertilizer, Govt. of India. The said HFCL was declared sick. However, the Central Government wanted to revive the Namrup Unit of HFCL and thus, Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Ltd., Namrup (BVFCL for brevity) was incorporated, which took over the assets of the erstwhile HFCL. It has been further projected that the service contract of the private respondents were renewed from time to time till date, with artificial breaks for 2-3 days, with no right to claim regularisation or absorption into permanent posts. Accordingly, the private respondents had continued to serve in the said school since their appointment without any protest.

4. Seeking regularisation of their services, the private respondents had approached this court by filing a writ petition, which was registered and numbered as W.P.(C) 6558/2023. The learned Single Judge, by referring to the decision in the case of Pranjal Dutta v. Union of India & Ors. W.P. (C) 7253/2019 decided on 23.04.2024, allowed the writ petition by directing that the cases of the respondent nos. 1 to 12 are to be taken up for regularisation as teachers in BVFCLHS School by following the parameters in said earlier judgment dated 23.04.2024.

5. The learned senior counsel for the appellant has referred to the grounds of appeal and amongst others, emphasis was given on the point that the judgment dated 23.04.2024 in W.P.(C) 7253/2019 was passed as the writ petitioners therein were found to have rendered more than 30 years of service, whereas some of the private respondents have not even completed 10 years of service in the said school. It was also submitted that those appointments were purely temporary and therefore, the private respondents were rendering service with full knowledge of their status and they had accepted their temporary status without any objection whatsoever. It has f