HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 45572 OF 2016

O R D E R:

Petitioners approached this Court to declare the memo dated 19.11.2014 and memo dated 17.08.2015 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the judgment of the Division Bench and to declare that they are entitled for regularization / absorption in terms of Writ Petition No.18254 of 1989 and batch dated 04.07.1991 and Writ Appeal No. 1795 of 2013 and Writ Appeal No.1135 of 2014 dated 08.08.2014 in the then existing vacancies and consequently to direct respondents to consider the case of petitioners for regularization / absorption from the date of initial appointment duly taking the total length of service of petitioners from the date of first engagement together with all consequential benefits.

2. The case of petitioners is that petitioner No.1 was appointed as Junior Assistant in 1987 on daily wage basis, Petitioners 2 to 4 also joined in 1987 as Junior Assistant / Typist. While so, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 17.06.1991 proposing to retrench the workmen / employees in the respondent board. Pursuant thereto, some employees were retrenched. Challenging the said action, Writ Petition No.18254 of 1989 came to be filed seeking regularization of their services since vacancies existed as on that date. This Court passed a common order dated 04.07.1991 in Writ Petition No.18254 of 1989 and batch directing respondents to consider the case of petitioners therein for regularization by taking into consideration the length of service and also granting relaxation and exceptions in cases of persons who had worked for sufficiently longer period of five years or more. The Hon’ble Court also observed that seniority should be maintained as per Section 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short, ‘the Act’. Aggrieved by the absence of positive directions, Writ Appeal No.275 of 1992 was preferred and the Division Bench disposed of the same on 31.01.1996 directing respondents to consider the eligibility of 55 persons for regularization in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. However, respondents for the reasons best known, did not consider petitioners’ cases for regularization. Their services were dispensed with on 31.08.1991. After a month, they were again taken into service but with artificial breaks, clearly intended only to evade regularization. Petitioners were continued till 31.12.1997 with such artificial breaks. Meanwhile, respondents regularized the services of 18 candidates. Petitioners also submitted representations for regularization by considering their total length of service under Section 25(B) of the Act and G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. Instead of accommodating petitioners, respondents deputed employees from Directorate of Technical Education into posts of Senior Assistant / Superintendent in the Board. After their repatriation, Technical Board employees were promoted to those posts, yet petitioners’ cases for absorption were ignored. Consequently, representations dated 06.10.2008, 24.12.2008, 01.07.2011, 20.08.2011, 25.08.2011 and 08.09.2011 were made. In reply, memo No.SBTET/C1/1155/2011-DWE dated 11.05.2012 was issued stating that the petitioners’ request cannot be considered in view of pendency of WP No.21772 of 2001 filed by others and interim orders therein.

2.1. Petitioners filed Writ Petition No.19401 of 2012 seeking declaration that they were fully eligible and qualified to be absorbed and regularized as Junior Assistant / Typist in the respondent Board in terms of the judgment in Writ Petition No.18254 of 1989 and Writ Appeal No.275 of 1992 dated 31.01.1996. This Court by order dated 12.08.2013 considered G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 and Section 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act and allowed the Writ Petition directing respondents to consider petitioners’ cases in the existing vacancies or vacancies that may arise, relaxing the age limit in view of long pendency. Instead of compliance, respondents filed Writ Ap