Long-term contractual/project service does not confer right to regularization absent recruitment rules provision and proper selection; parity claims with merit-recruited staff rejected; recent precedents deny such absorption.

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr.Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Member(A))

Since the issues involved in all the three OAs are common, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. With the consent of both the parties, OA 1345/2019 shall be treated as the lead case in this matter. In the said OA, the applicant seeks the following relief:

“To call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3^rd respondent in his office proceedings Order No.O.A.591 of 2019/Estt./Legal Cell/2019-20/468 dated 09.09.2019 and quash the same and consequently regularize the service of the applicant with all attendant benefits and pass such further or other order as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and necessary under the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.”

The relief sought in the other two OAs is as follows:-

“OA 1346/2019

To call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3^rd respondent in his office proceedings Order No.O.A.593 of 2019/Estt./Legal Cell/2019-20/466 dated 09.09.2019 and quash the same and consequently regularize the service of the applicant with all attendant benefits and pass such further or other order as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and necessary under the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

OA 1347/2019

To call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3^rd respondent in his office proceedings Order No.O.A.592 of 2019/Estt./Legal Cell/2019-20/467 dated 09.09.2019 and quash the same and consequently regularize the service of the applicant with all attendant benefits and pass such further or other order as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and necessary under the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are as follows:

This is the third round of litigation. On 17.04.1995, the applicant was appointed by the respondents, on temporary basis, through Employment Exchange, in the scale of pay of Field Laboratory Assistant at the CRME (ICMR), Madurai, and he worked, as such, till March, 2018, and, thereafter, at the ICMR VCRC, Puducherry, till the date of filing of the OA, with artificial break in few years, and still continues to be in employment, on consolidated pay, for nearly 25 years. Initially, the applicant filed OA No.388/2015 before this Tribunal, wherein this Tribunal, by order, dated 27.10.2015, issued a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant, on priority basis, as and when new projects are taken up, without waiting for a formal application from them and also issued a direction to review, on quarterly basis, for two years, the scope for their engagement in suitable project. On 02.01.2019, the applicant made a representation to the respondents for appointing him, permanently, in any of the posts available in the respondents’ office, but the 3^rd respondent, vide order, dated 25.02.2019, rejected his claim, stating that his request for regular appointment at the ICMR/CVRC could not be considered, as there was no provision for regularization of project services, in the ICMR Recruitment Rules. Aggrieved, the applicant filed OA No.591/2019, wherein this Tribunal, by order, dated 29.04.2019, held as under:-

“Keeping in view the limited relief urged and without going into the substantive merits of the case, since it is alleged that there is discrimination be