Contractual appointments do not guarantee rights to regularization or permanent status.

In all W.Ps For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Madhu Balaaji for Mr.M.Ravi For Respondent(s): Mr.E.Sundaram, Government Advocate COMMON ORDER These Writ Petitions have been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in R.No. No.14899/Imm/S3/2015 dated 20.05.2015, on the file of the second respondent and consequently, direct the respondents to regularly absorb and regularise the services of the petitioners as Computer Assistants from the date of their initial appointments, namely 01.06.2007, 20.06.2007, 20.07.2007 and 16.05.2007 respectively or in any other suitable post in the Department commensurate with their educational qualification and to grant all consequential service and monetary benefits.

2. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are as follows:

(i) The petitioners possess the requisite educational qualifications and had also registered their names with the District Employment Exchange, Cuddalore. Based on their qualifications, they were duly selected and appointed as Computer Assistants on contractual basis in the office of the Deputy Director of Health Services, Cuddalore, through Employment Exchange after interview.

(ii)The petitioners have been continuously discharging their duties without any break from the date of appointment and possess the prescribed qualifications for the post. Despite rendering long and uninterrupted service, the requests of the petitioners for regularisation of their service were rejected by the second respondent by order dated 20.05.2015, without proper consideration.

(iii)Similarly placed Computer Assistants working under the National Rural Health Mission Scheme have been granted regularisation and time scale of pay, whereas the petitioners and other employees working under the RCH Immunization Programme have been denied the same benefit. Such action on the part of the respondents is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and appropriate directions be issued to regularise the services of the petitioners.

(iv) In support of the above contention, reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sheo Narain Nagar and others vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others in Civil Appeal No.18510 of 2017, wherein, it was held that employees who have rendered continuous service for several years cannot be denied appropriate relief. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:

“7.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has relied upon paragraph 44 of the decision in Uma Devi (Supra), so as to contend that it was not the case of irregular appointment but of illegal appointment; there was no post available on which the services of the appellants could have been regularized and appointment were in contravention of the reservation policy also; thus, termination order was rightly issued and, in no case, the appellants were entitled for regularization of their services.

10.The High Court dismissed the writ application relying on the decision in Uma Devi(supra). But the appellants were employed basically in the year 1993; they had rendered service for three years, when they were offered the service on contract basis; it was not the case of back door entry; and there were no Rules in place for offering such kind of appointment. Thus, the appointment could not be said to be illegal and in contravention of Rules, as there were no such Rules available at the relevant point of time, when their temporary status was conferred w.e.f.2.10.2002. The appellants were required to be appointed on regular basis as a one-time measure, as laid down in paragraph 53 of Uma Devi(supra). Since the appellants had completed 10 years of service