Back
2003 Supreme(All) 2808
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAKESH TIWARI, MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.
Sujeet Kumar Singh and Others - Appellants
Versus
Union of India (UOI) and Others - Respondents
C.M.W.P. No. 10866 of 2002
Decided On : 10-01-2003
For the Appellant : Anupam Kumar.
For the Respondent: Tarun Verma, Amit Sthalekar and Govind Saranm and S.C.
Temporary employees have no automatic right to regularisation and must participate in the selection or screening process as per the rules.
Headnote:
Termination of Service - Railway Recruitment - Rules 109, 162, 164 of Indian Railways Establishment Manual - Railway Board's Master Circular dated 29.1.1991 - Temporary Employment - Regularisation - Screening Committee - Selection Process
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged their termination of service and sought regularisation against existing vacancies in accordance with the Railway Board's rules. They were engaged as substitutes for pharmacist and radiographer positions until regularly selected candidates became available.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners, being temporary employees, had no automatic right to the posts and could have participated in the selection or screening process for regularisation, which they failed to do. The court upheld the dismissal of the petition by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Issues: The issues involved the temporary employment of the petitioners, their right to regularisation, and their failure to participate in the selection or screening process for the posts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that temporary employees have no automatic right to the posts and must participate in the regularisation process as per the rules. The failure of the petitioners to apply for screening or participate in the selection process barred them from challenging the regular selection process initiated by the Railway Recruitment Board.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The Petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the impugned orders of their termination of service dated 8.3.2002, Annexures-2a, 2b and 2c to the writ petition passed subsequent to the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, dated 5.3.2002, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The Petitioners have also sought a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to consider the case of their absorption/regularisation against existing vacancies in different regions in accordance with the Rules and Master Circular issued by the Railway Board dated 29.1.1991 and thereafter the remaining seats may be filled up out of the selected candidates.
3. The brief facts of the case are that three vacancies of Pharmacist in Grade III in the scale of Rs. 4,500-7,000 and one post of Radiographer in the scale of Rs. 4,500-7,000 in the non-gazetted cadre of para-medical category, in Diesel Locomotive Works, hospital were required to be filled in by the administration in the beginning of the year 1998. According to the Rules laid down in Rule 109 read with Rules 162 and 164 of Indian Railways Establishment Manual. Volume I, 1989 edition, the above vacancies were to be filled by direct recruitment through Railway Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to as R.R.B.). Accordingly, indents in two phases for recruitment of one post of pharmacist and one post of radiographer were sent to R.R.B., Allahabad, vide letter No. 27/5/56 E/Med/Part-IX, dated 15.1.1998 and another indent for 2 posts of pharmacist Grade III Rs. 4,500-7,000 was placed on R.R.B. vide letter No. 27/5/56E/Med/Part-IX, dated 26.2.1998. Thus, the total indents were for 3 posts of Pharmacist and 1 post of radiographer. Copies of the aforesaid letters dated 15.1.1998 and 26.2.1998 are Annexures-C.A. 1 and C.A. 2 respectively. In view of the time factor and delay in getting the selected candidate from R.R.B., Allahabad, and difficulty in managing the increased work load in D.L.W. Hospital, it was decided by the competent authority to engage substitute employees as a temporary measures against the above posts till regularly selected candidates become available.
4. Petitioner Nos. 1 Surjeet Kumar Singh and Petitioner No. 2 Anand Kumar Mishra were informed about the terms and conditions of service by means of letter dated 24.12.1998, specifically stating that they could be offered temporary employment on daily wages for a period of three months or till the directly selected candidates for the post are available after selection by the R.R.B., Allahabad, only if these conditions were acceptable to them. Petitioner No. 3 was also offered employment as substitute Radiographer for a period of three months or till regularly selected candidates on the same terms. Relevant paras 1, 3 and 10 of letter dated 24.12.1998, appointing them as substitutes are being quoted below:
5. Since a panel of two pharmacists and one radiographer of directly selected candidates was yet to be received, the services of the Petitioners were continued as substitutes in terms of the conditions of appointment laid down in their letters of appointment as substitutes read with the provisions contained in Note 2 under para 3 of the Railway Board's Master Circular dated 29.1.1991.
6. According to the provisions contained in para 4.4 of the above Railway Board's Master Circular dated 29.1.1991, a substitute on conferment of temporary status does not become entitled for automatic absorption/ appointment in the Railway Service unless they are appointed through selection or are absorbed after screening by the Screening Committee.
7. It is contended by the counsel for the Petitioners that they were appointed as substitutes on the post of Pharmacist Grade-III and Radiographer vide appointment order dated 12.1.1999. All the three Petitioners were awarded temporary status w.e.f 13.5.1999, vide order dated 28.10.1999. The claim of the
