CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE M. A. CHOWDHARY, JUDGE.

(JUDGMENT)

01. Since, in all the three above-titled connected Petitions, common questions of facts as well as law are involved, therefore, it is proposed to decide the same by this common Judgment.

02. The Petitioners, in all these three connected Writ Petitions, claiming to have been engaged on contractual basis in the Respondent- Indira Gandhi National Open University, Srinagar Centre for its different Sections, seek a direction upon the Respondents to treat and regularize them as Group C/ Group D employees against the posts on which they have been working since the date of their engagement, as well as to release and extend all benefits to them, as are being given to other regular employees of the Respondent-University performing the same job as that of the Petitioners, including leave. The Petitioners are also seeking direction upon the Respondents not to effect the break in service of the Petitioners after every 89 days and continue their services, till they are regularized/ confirmed.

03. Upon notice having been issued, the Respondents have filed their Objections, stating therein that the Petitioners have been engaged purely on daily-wage basis as a stop-gap arrangement for seasonal work arising during the course of admission and examination, against the posts which otherwise are required to be filled up in accordance with the conditions and provisions of the Recruitment Rules of 2010; that the services of the Petitioners, being purely daily-wage and seasonal in nature, cannot be regularized as such; that no regularization in favour of the Petitioners can be done against the provisions of the Rules which are in vogue and govern the functioning of the Respondent-University; that the Petitioners, being ineligible in terms of the Rules, cannot claim any benefit, much less regularization, against the posts as claimed in the Petitions; that it is settled position of law that when a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a daily wager/ casual worker and the engagement is not based on proper selection, he is deemed to be aware of the natural consequences of such an employment, therefore, cannot invoke Writ jurisdiction of this Court to seek regularization, inasmuch as all such posts are required to be filled up by a proper recruitment process under the relevant Statute.

04. Mr R. A. Bhat, the learned Counsel appearing for Petitioners in all these three connected Writ Petitions, submits that the Petitioners have been engaged against the posts which were lying vacant in the Respondent- University (IGNOU), w.e.f. 2008 onwards, through a due process of selection and that they are possessing the relevant qualifications with respect to the posts which they are holding; that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” is a well-established legal doctrine that emanates from Article 39 (d) of the Constitution of India, which directs the State to ensure that there is equal pay for equal work, therefore, the Petitioners, being engaged to perform similar work to that of their other regular counterparts, have a legitimate claim to equal pay.

05. He further submits that the Respondents, in the year 2010, have published Indira Gandhi National Open University (Non-Academic Employes-Group-A, B & C) Recruitment & Promotional Rules 2010 and, as per the said Rules, insofar as the post of Junior Assistant-cum-Typist is concerned, promotion to the said post has to be way of 25% from Multi- Tasking Staff, who have rendered a minimum of five years of continuous service in that grade with 10+2 or its equivalent with a typing speed of 40 words per minute in English or 35 words per minute in Hindi on computers, and keeping in view this rule position, as well as the fact that the Petitioners were appointed in 2008 onwards, as such, were to be designated as Multi- Tasking Staff, rendering them eligible to be promoted to the post of Junior Assistant-cum-Typist under the said 25% quota, hav