Unpaid trainees lack enforceable right to appointment; regularization valid under initial constitution rules for appointed incumbents only.

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The SWP No.2134/2018 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.4928/2020 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court seeking following relief: -

a) allow the present writ petition;

b) quash the Govt. order No. 26 GAD of 2017 dated 25.09.2017 issued by respondent No. 2 for regularization of Private respondent No. 4 and 5 for the post of grade-III in Civil Aviation Department.

c) Command the respondents more particularly respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 to appoint the petitioner as Tech-III in the Civil Aviation Department and refer the vacancies in terms of Section 5 (2) of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment Rules, 2010 for the post of Aircraft Technician Grade-III to Service Selection Board as per the rules.

d) ANY other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;

3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in his pleadings are as follows: -

a) The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No. 2134/2018, which stood transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A. No. 4928/2020 before this Tribunal. The applicant approached the writ court questioning the legality of Government Order No. 26-GAD of 2017 dated 25.09.2017, whereby respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were regularized as Aircraft Technician Grade-III in the Civil Aviation Department, and further sought a direction for his own appointment to the said post through the process of direct recruitment.

b) The case set up by the applicant is that he possesses qualifications in Aircraft Engineering and was allowed to undergo job training in the Civil Aviation Department from 05.09.2011 to 31.05.2012 without any remuneration. According to him, despite being technically qualified, he was ignored by the department, whereas respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were allegedly extended undue benefit by way of repeated contractual extensions and eventual regularization, allegedly with mala fide intent and in violation of statutory recruitment tules.

c) It is the applicant’s assertion that recruitment rules for the post of Aircraft Technician Grade-III were framed vide SRO 421 of 2014 dated 20.10.2014, which provided that 75% of the posts were to be filled by direct recruitment and 25% by promotion. He contends that after the framing of these rules, the department could not have extended the contractual engagement of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, nor could it have regularized them by invoking the initial constitution clause of the rules.

d) The applicant further alleges that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were initially engaged on contractual/consolidated basis vide Government Order No. 166-CAW of 2012 dated 06.03.2012 for a period of one year and that their subsequent extensions were illegal, back-dated, and contrary to the directions issued by the General Administration Department. According to the applicant, these extensions were deliberately granted to bring the private respondents within the ambit of Rule 3(3) of SRO 421 of 2014, thereby enabling their regularization.

e) The applicant places reliance upon the creation of eight posts of Aircraft Technician Grade-III vide Government Order No. 30- GAD of 2013 dated 02.09.2013 and contends that after regularization of one Sanjay