Court established that employees working for over ten years on sanctioned posts are entitled to regularization under established rules, reinforcing protections against arbitrary dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for mandamus commanding upon the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in regular establishment with all consequential benefits.

2. The case of the petitioners lies in a narrow compass. The Science and Technology Department of then Government of Bihar, Patna vide Memo No.1826 dated 26.09.1996 communicated the Accountant General, Bihar regarding the vacant and sanctioned post under different departments in different Polytechnics including Government Women’s Polytechnic, Ranchi. Pursuant to the same, an advertisement was floated and the petitioners being eligible participated in the recruitment process and subsequently, were appointed on contract basis under the respondent government Polytechnic, Ranchi & Bokaro in the year, 1997 on different posts like Class IV, computer Supervisor, Machine Operator, Lab Attendant have been working continuously on vacant and sanctioned posts right from their initial appointments. It is further the case of the petitioners that after bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the Govt. of Jharkhand also recognized the services of the petitioners and petitioners have been continuously without any interruption. On 13.06.2006, the Principal, Incharge of Government Women’s Polytechnic, Ranchi submitted a list of sanctioned and vacant posts available in the said Institute. Further, vide Memo No.1969 dated 20.10.2011, the Science and Technology Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi extended the employment of the petitioners as well as other teaching and non-teaching staff for the financial year, 2007-08 to 2011-12.

3. It is specific case of the petitioners that the petitioners were working on sanctioned and vacant posts from 1997, but as their services have not been regularized, they have approached this court by filing a writ petition.

4. The petitioners claim for regularisation on the ground that the petitioners are working from 1997 on vacant and sanctioned post. The services of the petitioners are being extended from time to time for last two decades, therefore, their continuance in service cannot be termed as ‘ad hoc or on contract basis and as such, they are entitled for regularization of their services. The action of respondents are completely against the Regularization Rules, 2015 and also directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Uma Devi Vs. State of Karnataka. and also orders passed in case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. He further submits that the ground taken by the respondents that the posts created for execution of World Bank Scheme was temporary in nature is not sustainable in the eyes of law as vide Letter No.202 dated 26.02.1998, it is clearly stated that despite the project came to an end, all the posts sanctioned thereunder shall continue being perennial in nature.

5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the action of the respondent as the same is passed in consonance with the guidelines and principles settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court. He further submits that the grant of extension to work for some more period to the petitioners could never result in conferring on them the status of a permanent employee or could enable them to seek regularization in services. The petitioners were appointed on contractual basis to the post created exclusively for execution o