Temporary employees should only be replaced by regular employees, emphasizing equitable rights for those engaged in a selection process despite not securing appointments.

JUDGMENT

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

These appeals arise from the common judgment in three writ petitions namely, W.P.(C) Nos.17180 of 2021, 17247 of 2021 and 18249 of 2021. As the writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment, the appeals are also disposed of by this common judgment. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment, unless otherwise mentioned, as they appear in W.P.(C) No.17180 of 2021.

2. The petitioners in the writ petitions were persons included in the ranked list published by the Cochin University of Science and Technology (the University) on 28.12.2018 for appointment to the post of Sweeper-cum- Cleaner. As the ranks secured by the petitioners were not sufficient to secure regular appointments having regard to the number of vacancies, they were not appointed. Nevertheless, the petitioners were later engaged by the University as Sweeper-cum-Cleaner on daily wage basis in a few temporary posts. Ext.R3(a) is the order governing engagement of persons on daily wage basis in the University. In terms of Ext.R3(a), a person cannot be engaged on daily wage basis for a term exceeding 240 days. When steps were taken to disengage the petitioners on completing their term, they approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.12971 of 2021 claiming permanency, and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court directing the University to consider their representation. Pursuant to the direction aforesaid, the University issued Ext.P4 order rejecting the representation submitted by the petitioners taking the stand that they cannot be permitted to continue beyond 240 days. Ext.P4 order was under challenge in the writ petitions. Ext.R3(a) order of the University was also challenged in one of the writ petitions namely, W.P.(C) No.17247 of 2021. Among others, the petitioners sought in the writ petitions, a declaration that they are entitled to be engaged on daily wage basis till regular appointments are made by the University.

3. Counter affidavits were filed in the writ petitions by the University contending, among others, that having accepted the terms of the engagement as stipulated in Ext.R3(a), the petitioners cannot be heard to contend that they are entitled to continue otherwise than in accordance with Ext.R3(a) order. It was also contended by the University in the counter affidavits that there are no vacancies at present and that the petitioners are engaged only in temporary posts created in the exigencies of service.

4. The learned Single Judge took the view that Ext.R3(a) order is against the law laid down by the Apex Court in Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab , (2007) 13 SCC 292 that one ad hoc arrangement cannot be replaced by another ad hoc arrangement, and disposed of the writ petitions directing the University to continue to engage the petitioners till the University fill up the posts manned by the petitioners with a set of regular employees, by following the principle of last come, first go. The University is aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Single Judge.

5. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the University as also the learned counsel for the petitioners in the writ petitions.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that inasmuch as the engagement of the petitioners as Sweeper-cum-Cleaner in the University was in terms of Ext.R3(a) order, without there being any challenge to Ext.R3(a) order, the learned Single Judge ought not have directed the University to continue to engage the petitioners. It was argued by the learned Standing Counsel that having accepted the terms of the engagement that the engagement is only for a particular period, the petitioners cannot be heard to contend that they are entitled to be engaged beyond the term for which they were engaged. It was also argued by the learned Standing Counsel that the learned Single Judge was not right in relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Hargurpratap Singh, as the petitioners therein are not similarly placed l