Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 33
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.MANIKUMAR and N.ATHINATHAN, JJ.
R.Angayarkani - Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary to the Government, Union of India, Education Department, Puducherry - Respondent
W.P.Nos.36491 and 36947 of 2016, W.M.P.Nos.31402 and 31746 of 2016
Decided On : 03-01-2017
For the Petitioners: Mr. L.Chandrakumar
For the Respondents: Mr. R.Syed Mustafa, Addl. Govt. Pleader (Pondicherry)
The main legal point established in the judgment is that individuals appointed on a temporary and contract basis, without possessing the required qualifications at the time of appointment, cannot seek regularisation from the date of initial appointment as a matter of right.
Headnote:
Regularisation - Lecturers in Law - Recruitment Rules, 2013 - [Masters decree, Ph.D in Law, NET examination] - The court dismissed the writ petitions seeking regularisation of appointment as lecturers in law, as the petitioners' initial appointment was purely temporary and on contract basis, subject to the condition that it would not confer any right to regularisation or permanent appointment. The petitioners did not possess the required qualifications at the time of initial appointment and could not seek regularisation from the date of initial appointment as a matter of right. The court upheld the order of the Tribunal, which declined to interfere with the regular recruitment process and observed that the petitioners had participated in the recruitment process and did not have any grievance over the decision of the Tribunal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were appointed as Lecturers in Law on a contract basis and sought regularisation of their services against regular vacancies. The respondents contended that the appointment was purely temporary and did not confer any right to regularisation or permanent appointment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' initial appointment was purely temporary and subject to the condition that it would not confer any right to regularisation or permanent appointment. The court upheld the order of the Tribunal, which declined to interfere with the regular recruitment process and observed that the petitioners had participated in the recruitment process and did not have any grievance over the decision of the Tribunal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to seek regularisation of their services as lecturers in law from the date of their initial appointment, despite not possessing the required qualifications at the time of initial appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners, who did not possess the required qualifications at the time of initial appointment, could not seek regularisation from the date of initial appointment as a matter of right. The court also upheld the order of the Tribunal, which declined to interfere with the regular recruitment process.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions seeking regularisation of appointment as lecturers in law and upheld the order of the Tribunal. No costs were awarded.
S.MANIKUMAR, J.
As facts and law involved in both the writ petitions are similar, they are taken up together and disposed of, by a common order.
2. In November 2008, pursuant to the selection process undertaken, the petitioners have been appointed as Lectures in Law, on contract basis. Initially, they were engaged on consolidated pay of Rs.10,000/-, which was subsequently, in the year 2011, enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. Lateron, vide order, dated 19.05.2015, they were granted regular scale of pay. According to them, they have been discharging their duties and responsibilities, as per the norms of the University Grants Commission, in handling classes and working hours. When they made representations for absorption against regular vacancies, there was no response. Hence, they filed O.A.No.1246 of 2013, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, for a direction to the respondents to regularise their services as Lecturers in Law, from the date of their intitial appointment, with all consequential benefits.
3. Before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras, the petitioners have submitted that in similar circumstances, pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal/High Court, Government of Puducherry, have regularised the services of the lecturers, engaged on consolidated pay. They have also submitted that this Court in W.P.No.19528 of 2013, dated 14.08.2013, directed transfer of law colleges in Puducherry, from the Law Department to Education Department and further directed the Education Secretary, Puducherry, to fill up the vacancies of regular lecturers, on or before 31st December, 2013, petitioners have submitted that pursuant to the same, their services ought to have been regularised, against the vacancies in the law college.
4. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a detailed counter affidavit and contended that Union Territory of Puducherry, comprises of four regions, viz., Pondicherry, Karaikal, Mahe and Yanam and for the said four regions, Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College, is the only law college. Vacancies in the post of Lecturers, in the said law college, are filled up by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), New Delhi, subject to the requirement of posts and on the request of Union Territory administration. Owing to the time lag, in filling up the post of Lecturer in the above said college by UPSC, the Union Territory Administration had to make temporary engagement, to educate law students. An advertisement was issued by the respondent-Department, in the newspaper on 21st November, 2008, calling for 'walk-in-interview' for filling up 7 posts of Lecturers on contract basis, in the said college.
5. As per the notification, the essential qualifications are, "Candidates with Masters decree with Ph.D in Law or A pass in NET examination (Lecturer)." It was also mentioned that in case of non-availability of eligible candidates for the said posts, candidates with atleast M.L., and one year teaching experience as Lecturer in Colleges, may also be considered. On the basis of walk-in-interview, the petitioners were appointed, along with five other candidates, as Lecturers in Law, on contract basis, vide Memorandum No.2636/AGLC/2008/839, dated 24.11.2008 of Dr.Amebedkar Government Law College, Puducherry, subject to terms and conditions. Having accepted the above terms and conditions, both the petitioners joined duty on 15.12.2008 and 12.12.2008 respectively. Subsequently, vide G.O.Rt.No.55/2009-LD, dated 31.12.2009, Government of Puducherry, have revised the pay of the petitioners as Rs.25,000/- per month, with effect from 31.2.2009.
6. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 have further submitted that pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P.No.19528 of 2013, dated 14.08.2013, to the effect that Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College, should be under the administrative control of the Education Department and all the vacant posts, like Principal, Lecturers, Superintendent, LDC, etc., should be filled, on or before 31s
