Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 1571
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HULUVADI G.RAMESH, TEEKAA RAMAN, JJ.
N. Rajesh – Petitioner
Vs.
The Central Administrative Tribunal – Respondent
W.P.Nos.8371 to 8380 of 2017, 8686 to 8690 of 2017, W.M.P.Nos.18968, 19354, 19360, 18969, 19361, 9135, 9138, 9141, 9144, 9147, 9150, 9153, 9156, 9159, 9162, 9134, 9137, 9140, 9143, 9146, 9149, 9152, 9155, 9158, 9161, 9515, 9517, 9519, 9521 and 9523 of 2017
Decided On : 21-08-2017
For the Petitioners: Mr. A.L. Somayaji, Senior Counsel
For the Respondent: Mr. V. Vijay Shankar Mr. M.T.Arunan
Long-term contractual employees cannot claim regularisation, and it would be unfair to redo the evaluation process at a distant point of time.
Headnote:
Regularisation - Employment - SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT CHENNAI V. R.GONDASWAMY (2014) 4 SCC 769, STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. A.SINGAMUTHU (2017) 4 SCC 113
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were appointed as Pharmacists on a contractual basis and sought appointment to regular posts based on their experience. They also contested the evaluation process due to alleged wrong answers in the key answers provided.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners, despite their long experience in JIPMER on a contractual basis, cannot seek appointment to regular posts after failing in the evaluation process. The court also dismissed the contention regarding wrong answers in the evaluation process, stating that it would be unfair to redo the evaluation process at a distant point of time.
Issues: Regularisation of employment, evaluation process, priority basis for appointment
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles laid down in SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT CHENNAI V. R.GONDASWAMY and STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. A.SINGAMUTHU to conclude that long-term contractual employees cannot claim regularisation and that it would be unfair to redo the evaluation process at a distant point of time.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly, with the interim order granted in these cases being vacated and no costs imposed.
HULUVADI G.RAMESH, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. By consent, the writ petitions were taken up for disposal.
2. It appears that the above writ petitioners were appointed as Pharmacist in JIPMER-the second respondent herein on contractual basis for six months in the year 2011, and thereafter, their services were extended from time to time. While so, the JIPMER had issued a notification on 20.12.2013, calling for applications from the eligible candidates for filling up the 16 regular posts of Pharmacist. It appears that the petitioners, except two viz., petitioners in W.P.No.1667 of 2017 who had crossed the prescribed age limit at the relevant point of time, have applied for the same and attended the examinations conducted by JIPMER. Having found that they were not selected, eight candidates had filed the Original Application No.1666 of 2014 seeking appointment to the regular post without further valuation, considering their experience in JIPMER. The two candidates have filed O.A.No.1667 of 2017 seeking to consider their case despite their crossing the age limit. Out of the eight applicants in O.A.No.1666 of 2014, six candidates raising an issue that the key answers provided for 15 questions were found to be wrong and thereby they secured lesser marks and negative marks and therefore, they lost the opportunity of being selected, filed O.A.No.1685 of 2014. Since the Central Administrative Tribunal had dismissed all the three Original Applications, the present writ petitions have been filed.
3. The main contention of the petitioners is that they had put service in JIPMER continuously from the year 2011, though they had been originally appointed on contractual basis after being subjected to written test and interview and therefore, they should not be subjected to further evaluation methods, rather they can be accommodated in the existing vacancies. The other contention of the petitioners is that based on the wrong answers furnished in the key answers, they lost marks for 15 marks and they suffered negative marks too and hence, they seek redoing the evaluation. Their further contention is that from the communication of the Head of Department of Pharmacy dated 4.9.2014 to the Director of JIPMER, it can be inferred that there is lack of candidates in the field and therefore, there is every likelihood of creation of additional posts for which they can be considered on priority basis.
4. So far as the contention of the experience gained by the petitioners, it is apt to refer to the decision of a the Apex Court in SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT CHENNAI V. R.GONDASWAMY ((2014) 4 SCC 769) wherein it has been held thus:-
"8. This Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Daya Lal & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 1193, has considered the scope of regularisation of irregular or part-time appointments in all possible eventualities and laid down well-settled principles relating to regularisation and parity in pay relevant in the context of the issues involved therein. The same are as under:
“(i) The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not issue a direction for regularisation of services of an employee which would be violative of the constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularised.
(ii) Mere continuation of service by a temporary or ad hoc or
