CAT Dismisses Regularization Plea for JNV Casual Workers Who Failed Selection Process, Grants Minimum Pay

New Delhi: In a significant ruling affecting a batch of applications filed by Electrician-cum-Plumbers (ECPs) engaged on a casual basis at various Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs), the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has held that applicants who participated in a regular selection process cannot challenge the same after failing to qualify.

The common order, pronounced on April 17, 2025, by the bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg , Member (J), and Hon’ble Dr. Anand S. Khati , Member (A), addressed numerous Original Applications (O.A.s) filed by ECPs seeking regularization of their services, weightage for their experience, quashing of the recruitment list, and equal pay for equal work. The facts were primarily drawn from O.A. No. 2196/2022, filed by Govind Pandit and others.

Background of the Case

The applicants were working as casual/daily wagers as Electrician-cum-Plumbers in different JNVs for several years. They challenged a recruitment process initiated by the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS) for regular ECP posts, alleging it was biased and designed to favor new candidates over existing ones like them. They argued that the process, which involved a Computer-Based Test (CBT) and a Trade/Skill Test, lacked transparency and did not specify clear criteria or cut-off marks beforehand. Crucially, they contended that no adequate weightage was given to their years of experience working in the same role.

Arguments Presented

Applicants' Contentions:

Learned senior counsel for the applicants argued that the NVS conducted a "colorable exercise of recruitment" to remove existing ECPs without giving them fair assessment and weightage for their experience. They claimed the process was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice.

Reliance was placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Uma Devi , arguing that the applicants, having worked for ten years or more, met the criteria for regularization as directed by the apex court. They also invoked the principle of "equal pay for equal work," citing State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh (2017) 1 SCC 148 , to claim entitlement to the minimum wages of regular employees discharging similar duties. They further highlighted NVS guidelines specifying ITI certificate and 2 years' experience as eligibility, which they met.

Specific grounds included allegations of mala fide and arbitrary action, lack of transparency, no weightage for experience, violation of natural justice, arbitrary fixing of passing marks, 'pick and choose' policy, and failure to fill all vacant posts.

Respondents' Defence:

The respondents, represented by the Union of India, NVS, and others, contested the claims. Their counsel submitted that the applicants' engagement was purely temporary, casual, and need-based, conferring no right to regularization or continued employment. They emphasized that the recruitment process was conducted strictly according to Recruitment Rules and guidelines, ensuring fairness for all candidates.

They stated that the applicants participated in the CBT but failed to qualify for the subsequent trade test based on their performance. They distinguished the applicants' case from the judgments cited, arguing that casual/temporary employees are not entitled to regularization unless their initial appointment was regular, against sanctioned posts, and followed due process. They reiterated the stance from Uma Devi that temporary engagement does not automatically lead to permanent absorption.

Tribunal's Reasoning

The Tribunal noted that a common question of law and fact tied the batch of cases together. The core finding of the bench was based on the applicants' participation in the very selection process they were challenging.

> "It is not in dispute that the applicants were allowed to appear in the selection process and have also participated in the same. It is also not in dispute that they could not qualify the selection process. In view of the same, we are of the opinion that the applicants having participated in the selection process, cannot challenge the said process and seek relaxation to the Recruitment Rules, more particularly when, they were unsuccessful."

The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Thane & Ors. Versus Santosh Tukaram Tiware & Ors. (decided on 24.11.2022) , which denied regularization to a contractual worker despite long service because the appointment was not through a selection procedure and a policy decision favored agency engagement.

The bench also reiterated the principles from the Constitution Bench judgment in Uma Devi , noting that directing regularization in certain past cases does not create a legitimate expectation for others. They cited B.S.N.L. , Jammu vs. Teja Singh (CA No. 292/2009) , where the Supreme Court strongly reaffirmed Uma Devi and criticized lower courts for deviating from it. The Tribunal highlighted the necessary pre-conditions for regularization: appointment by a competent authority on a sanctioned post, and participation in a selection process under Recruitment Rules (which the applicants were given a concession to do but failed).

Regarding the 'equal pay for equal work' argument, the Tribunal acknowledged the principle as affirmed in Jagjit Singh , noting it applies to temporarily engaged employees performing the same duties as regular staff.

Conclusion and Directions

Based on its analysis, the CAT partly allowed the O.A.s, specifically on the issue of payment. The Tribunal directed the respondents that the applicants shall be paid a consolidated pay at the minimum of the pay scale in the relevant pay band, equivalent to that given to a new entrant on initial appointment. Arrears for this minimum pay are to be paid, restricted to the period of three years prior to the filing of the respective O.A.s. This exercise is mandated to be completed within two months.

Furthermore, the Tribunal directed that the services of the applicants who were working until the date of filing of their O.A.s shall not be terminated until the remaining vacancies are filled through the regular recruitment channel. However, the bench explicitly clarified that this direction "shall not give any right to the applicants for seeking regularization."

The prayers seeking the quashing of the impugned selection list, regularization of services, and weightage for experience were effectively dismissed by the Tribunal's reasoning that applicants who fail a selection process after participating in it cannot challenge it.

Pending Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) were also disposed of. The Tribunal made no order as to costs.

This judgment reinforces the legal position that participation in a selection process generally bars subsequent challenges to its validity by unsuccessful candidates, while also upholding the principle of minimum pay for equal work for temporary staff, even when regularization is denied.