Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(HP) 361

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Satyen Vaidya, JJ.
Satish Kumar & others - Petitioners
Versus
HRTC & another – Respondents
CWP No. 434 of 2020 with CWPOA Nos. 1246, 1494, 1610, 3140, 3184, 5280 of 2019, 1848, 1850, 1856, 1861, 1863, 1867, 3436, 3437, 3440, 3441, 3442, 3445 to 3461, 3465 to 3468, 3470, 3471, 3474, 3475, 3476, 3479, 3484, 3487, 3489, 3490, 3493, 3497 3500, 3501, 3503, 4779, 4904, 5237, 5612, 5617, 5625, 5627, 5648, 5657, 5675, 5680, 5684, 6128, 6301, 6398, 6403, 6540, 6629, 6649, 6749, 6751, 6753, 6861, 6983, 6986, 6988, 7015, 7135, 7164, 7165, 7171, 7172, 7173, 7174, 7202 of 2020, CWP Nos. 369, 437, 607, 3369 of 2020, CWP Nos. 913 to 922, 1202, 1470, 1559, 2346, 2418, 2452, 4485, 4676, 4688, 5848, 6116, 6482, 6483, 7861, 8092, 8147, 8201, 8276 of 2021, CWP Nos. 762, 1119, 1320, 1326, 1666, 1671, 2441, 2442, 2537, 2543 to 2548, 2550 to 2553, 2564 to 2568, 3136, 3162, 3216, 3406, 3419, 3420, 3521, 4532, 4952, 5481, 5706, 6102, 6159, 6160, 6283, 6341, 6369, 6728, 7058, 7098, 7313, 7314, 7348, 7756, 7912, 8198, 8496, 8828 of 2022 with COPC No. 60 of 2022, CWPs No. 1233, 1811, 1812 of 2023, CWPOA Nos. 6794, 6624, 6640, 6642, 6790, 6792, 6797 of 2020 and CWP No. 7786 of 2022
Decided On : 23-06-2023

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Sr. Advocate and Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Senior Advocates, with Mr. Munish Datwalia, Mr. M.A. Khan Sr. Advocate with Ms. Hem Kanta Kaushal, Mr. R.S. Verma, Mr. Virender Thakur, Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Mr. Vinay Sharma, Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Mr. Sunil Awasthi, Mr. N.D. Sharma, Mr. V.K. Verma, Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Mr. Jaidev Thakur, Mr. Jai Ram Thakur, Mr. P.M. Negi, Mr. Ashok Kumar, Mr. Kunal Sharma, Ms. Anchal Sharma, Mr. Gambhir Singh, Mr. Hemant thakur, Mr. Anuj Gupta, Mr. Sanjeev Motta, Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Mr. Panku Chaudhary, Mr. Parkash Sharma, Ms. Manisha Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Chaudhary, Ms. Kritika Kumari, Ms. Sonia Saini, Mr. Rajesh Prakash, Ms. Surila Sangam, Mr. Dhairya Sushant, Mr. Prashant Chaudhary, Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Mr. Harish Dod, Mr. Varun Chandel, Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, Mr. Kush Sharma, and Mandeep Chandel, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. I.N. Mehta and Mr. Yash Wardhan Chauhan, Sr. Additional Advocate Generals and Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Vir Bahadur Verma, Mr. Vikas Rajput, Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani, Ms. Shubh Mahajan and Ms. Reeta Thakur and Mr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan, Advocates, Mr. Angrez Kapoor, Advocate

Point of Law: Object of Article 16 is to create a constitutional right to equality of opportunity and employment in public offices.

Headnote:
Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2003 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 16 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Employment - Abrupt disengagement without issuance of any prior notice or warning - Cause commonly raised by petitioners is against their abrupt disengagement by HRTC without issuance of any prior notice or warning – Some of petitioners have succeeded to continue to work as Conductors with HRTC on strength of interim orders, will not help their case for simple reason interim orders are always subject to final adjudication - Para 22.
Finding of the Court :
No equity can be claimed by such petitioner at cost of rule of law - Actions of HRTC had provided reasons to petitioner to entertain legitimate expectations that their engagement would be continued and resultantly they would be able to seek regular employment - Even such contention of petitioners is liable to be rejected for reasons firstly, that petitioners have not laid any factual foundation for raising such plea and secondly, it cannot be said that petitioner were not aware about nature of engagement they were getting into, especially when there was no promise express or implied by HRTC to grant any employment to petitioners.
Result: Petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

All these petitions are being decided by a common judgment as these involve common questions of facts and law.

2. Respondent No.1 (for short “HRTC”) formulated a scheme known as “Passenger Service Delivery Skill Development Programme” vide notification dated 19.02.2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the scheme’) with the object to shift from “prioritizing employment” to “prioritizing employability” in both public and private surface bus transport segment by its capacity building and to inculcate the requisite skills by imparting training as per requirement of the transport industry. Making the skilled force readily available was also underlined as one of its objective.

3. The salient features of the scheme, relevant for adjudication of the issue involved in the instant petitions are as under: -

“6. Eligibility Criteria: An aspirant should possess Matriculation certificate and valid conductor licence at the time of submission of application. To be eligible for getting Skill Development allowance, the annual family income should be less than 2.0 lacs.

13. Benefits. (I) Employability opportunity for skilled man power in private/Govt. Bus Transport sectors in HP & outside.

(ii) May be in the regular recruitment in HRTC some weightage will be given.

While prescribing procedure for skill development programme it was clarified as under:

13. Employment: - HRTC will not be liable to provide employment to such trainee after completion of the skill development programme. However, some casual employment as per requirement may be given.”

4. HRTC invited applications from eligible candidates for participation in the training. Total 8595 applications were received by various units of HRTC across the State. Petitioners had also submitted their applications and were selected for the training under the scheme besides the others.

5. Though, the duration of training initially was for six months, it was subsequently reduced to three months. HRTC, even after completion of training period of petitioners utilized their services as conductors on fixed remunerations. The services of petitioners were utilized as Conductors by HRTC for different periods, which extended even upto three years. The engagement of petitioners was discontinued by HRTC w.e.f. 27.8.2018.

6. On their disengagement and in some cases even prior to that, petitioners had availed legal remedies either by approaching the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal or this Court. In some of the matters, few of the petitioners were able to secure interim orders and succeeded in continuing to be engaged as conductors by HRTC, whereas in other cases, the engagement of other petitioners came to an end.

7. The cause commonly raised by the petitioners is against their abrupt disengagement by HRTC without issuance of any prior notice or warning. In addition, petitioners have claimed the continuation of their engagement as conductors by HRTC by formulation of a policy for their regularization. Those petitioners, who have succeeded in continuing their engagement as conductors with HRTC on the strength of interim orders, have raised the plea of their continued employment for about six years. On the other, those who have not been able to continue after 27.8.2018, in addition to seeking parity with the petitioners continuing to be engaged on the basis of interim orders, have also raised a plea that any order in favour of the continuing persons will not only create anomalous position, but will also render advantage to juniors over the seniors. Another ground raised on behalf of the petitioners is that some of the petitioners have become over age and will not get any employment after losing valuable time in the service of HRTC. Another plea that has been raised before us is that on account of subsequent enhancement of qualification by amending the relevant Recruitment and Promotion Rules, many of the petitioners will miss their chance to participate in selection process for the recruitment to the