Long-serving contract employees with sanctioned appointments are entitled to regularization despite initial contractual terms, as established by judicial precedents.

COMMON ORDER:

In view of commonality of the issue involved in both the writ petitions, they are analogously heard and taken up for disposal by way of this Common Order. For reference and discussion, the facts in W.P.No.20036 of 2013 are taken.

2. The case of the petitioners, precisely, as per the writ affidavit, is that they are educationally qualified and eligible for appointment as Anganwadi workers, and Supervisors Grade-II; and the respondent- Government has conducted due selection process, and selected the petitioners for appointment. However, due to the ban imposed at the relevant time for appointments, the petitioners were appointed on contract basis through an agency, namely RK4CES Agency, on contract basis. The material papers filed with the writ petition would show that one Indiramma was appointed way back in the year 1985; and the petitioners have put in service ranging between 6 to 15 years as on the date of filing the writ petition in 2013. While so, the respondent- Government issued a Notification No.228/2013 dated 02.07.2013 for recruitment of Supervisors Grade-II, by providing 15% weightage marks to the contract employees/petitioners. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the Notification dated 02.07.2013 is illegal and arbitrary; in that the notification seeks the petitioners to appear for the selection process again, despite their selection against sanctioned posts and rendering services for over a decade.

3. Heard Mr.K.R. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioners; and learned Government Pleader for the respondents. Perused the record.

4. Learned Government Pleader, based on the counter affidavit, would essentially contend that as per the Rules, the posts have to be filled by direct recruitment, and keeping in view the contract service rendered by the petitioners, a 15% weightage has been provided; and the Rules does not permit regularization of services and hence the petitioners cannot be regularized. It is also contended that though the petitioners were appointed against sanctioned posts, they are contract employees and they cannot claim regularization. It is contended that the petitioners can attend for selection process, and in case any of the petitioners fail to get selected, they will still be continued in the contract employment and such number of posts will be reduced from the total posts notified.

5. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the material papers filed with the writ affidavit, including the appointment order issued to one M. Padmasree on 03.12.1985 and one P. Indravathi on 01.04.1987 (at page Nos.44 to 47 of the material papers in WP No.20036 of 2013), and also the judgments relied on by the respective parties, it is to be noted at the outset that it is an admitted fact that the petitioners have been appointed against sanctioned posts, and the petitioners have undergone due recruitment process and it is only thereafter they were appointed, however, due to the constraint of ban imposed on recruitment, the authorities appointed the petitioners on contract basis, and the petitioners have been continuing as Anganwadi workers/ Supervisors Grade-II. Further, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners are not educationally unqualified or incompetent to perform the duties of the post. Furthermore, the petitioners have been subjected to all the regular selection process at the time of their initial appointment.

6. It is to be noted that the writ affidavit and the material papers enclosed therewith, and also the admissions made by the respondent authorities in the counter affidavit, would disclose that the petitioners are qualified and have undergone due process of selection before appointment against sanctioned posts, and they are continuing in service.

7. The Rules governing the recruitment per se, be that as it may, when the respondent-Government has on its own volition imposed a ban, and keeping in view the circumstances prevailing at the relevant time of ban,