Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Tapan Kumar Mahapatra vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 September, 2024

Author: Tapabrata Chakraborty

Bench: Tapabrata Chakraborty

                                           1



                     IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                       Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                              APPELLATE SIDE


Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty
                 &
The Hon'ble Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee


                                 WP.CT 52 of 2022

                            Tapan Kumar Mahapatra
                                    Versus
                             Union of India & Ors.



For the Petitioner          :      Mr. Sagar Bandhopadhyay,
                                   Mr. Kaustav Maiti.


For the Union of India      :      Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharya.



Hearing is concluded on     :      13th August, 2024



Judgment On                 :      25th September, 2024



Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.

Prelude:

1. Under assail in the present writ petition is an order dated May 2,

2022 passed by the learned Tribunal in OA 1206 of 2019. In that order, the

Tribunal determined that the petitioner was not eligible for a position with

a grade pay of Rs. 7600/- as recommended by the 6th Pay Commission.

Furthermore, the Tribunal rejected the petitioner's request to count his

previous service as a casual employee at ERNET India as qualifying

service.

Key Facts:

2. Prior to venturing to decide the contentious issues, it is essential to

review the relevant facts that have given rise to this writ petition.

3. The Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre (in short, VECC) in Kolkata is a

unit of the Department of Atomic Energy (in short, DAE), Government of

India, engaged in research and development in Accelerator Science &

Technology, Nuclear Science, Material Science, Computer Science &

Technology, and other fields, whereas ERNET India, a National Research

and Education Network, is an autonomous society under the Department

of Electronics & Information Technology, Ministry of Communication &

Information Technology, Government of India.

4. ERNET India established ERNET Transit Nodes [(now known as

Points of Presence (PoP)] at various R&D and academic institutions across

the country to expand networking and email facilities. The PoP for the

Eastern Part of India was located at VECC, Kolkata.

5. According to the Memorandum of Understanding (in short, MoU)

executed between VECC and ERNET India, the manpower required for the

ERNET Transit Node would be hired on a contract basis by VECC.

However, the salaries and other benefits for this manpower would be paid

by ERNET India through operational expenses.

6. Accordingly, a selection process was initiated to fill one post of

Technical Assistant on a purely temporary basis for a period of one year,

with a consolidated salary of Rs. 4000 per month, under the Department

of Electronics, Government of India, for posting at VECC, Department of

Atomic Energy, Kolkata and an advertisement vide. no. VECC-1/98 was

issued inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post.

7. The petitioner participated in the selection process and was successful.

Consequently, the petitioner was offered the post. The petitioner accepted

the offer and joined the post with a clear understanding that the

engagement was purely temporary for one year and could be discontinued

at any time without notice.

8. The MoU was extended from time to time. However, without initiating

any further selection process, the petitioner's engagement was also

extended and his consolidated salary was revised from time to time.

9. The letters dated July 24, 2012, and August 22, 2012, issued by the

Assistant Personnel Officer, VECC, state that, pursuant to an interview

held on July 27, 2012, to assess the petitioner's suitability for the extension

of his engagement as a System Administrator for the Kolkata PoP Centre of

ERNET India, the petitioner's engagement was extended for an additional

year, effective from July 20, 2012.

10. The petitioner challenged both the letters dated July 24, 2012, and

August 22, 2012, before the learned Tribunal by preferring an original

application (in short, OA), being OA No. 818 of 2012. In the OA, the

petitioner also sought a direction for VECC to grant permanent approval of

his service in the appropriate post with a Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/-.

11. The MoU ceased to operate as of June 30, 2013. Accordingly, by a letter

dated May 28, 2013, the petitioner was notified that there would be no

requirement for his services beyond June 30, 2013.

12. By preferring a Miscellaneous application vide. MA no. 215 of 2012 in

connection with the OA, the petitioner challenged the letter dated May 28,

2013. Record reveals that by an interim order dated 24.06.2013, the

learned Tribunal directed VECC not to terminate the petitioner's

appointment till the disposal of the OA. The petitioner preferred another

application being MA 418 of 2013 seeking a direction upon the VECC to

disburse his salary. By an order dated 27.09.2013, VECC was directed to

release his salary since July 2013 and allow him to resume his duties.

13. However, the OA 818 of 2012 was finally disposed of by an order dated

February 7, 2014. The operative part of the order dated 7.2.2014 is quoted

as follows:

"As such under this peculiar circumstances we feel it appropriate to

direct the VECC to take up the matter with the appropriate authority

to suitably absorb the applicant in its organization, if required by

giving him necessary training, and/or after obtaining necessary

sanction for relaxation of essential conditions from the appropriate

authority, and in due regard to the recommendations referred to

hereinabove, pass appropriate orders within 3 months. Till such time

the interim order granted earlier shall continue if not already set

aside by the Hon'ble High Court and the applicant shall be allowed to

perform his duties against any suitable post of VECC."

14. With a complaint of wilful violation of the order dated February 7,

2014, the petitioner filed a contempt application, being C.P.C. No. 163 of

2014 before the learned Tribunal. Meanwhile, the respondents challenged

the order dated February 7, 2014, passed in OA 818 of 2012, by filing a writ

petition being WPCT 93 of 2014, which was dismissed by an order dated

March 2, 2015. The order dated March 2, 2015, was then assailed by the

respondents by preferring a Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12317 of

2015, but the appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

15. However, pursuant to the order dated February 7, 2014, the petitioner

was offered an ad hoc appointment to the post of 'Work Assistant/A' at the

Regional Radiation Centre, VECC, Kolkata, with a consolidated monthly

salary of Rs. 9700/- plus Dearness Allowance (D.A.), along with certain

other terms, as specified in a letter dated August 10, 2015.

16. Records further reveal that, seeking judicial review of the order dated

February 5, 2016, passed by the learned Tribunal in CPC 163 of 2014, the

petitioner instituted a writ petition, being C.O.C.T. No. 01 of 2016.

However, during the hearing of this writ petition, by a letter dated

December 22, 2016, the petitioner was appointed as a 'Work Assistant/A'

in a substantive/permanent capacity, with a basic pay of Rs. 18,000/- (Pay

Level-1 of the pay matrix) and a gross pay of Rs. 27,319/- effective from

October 28, 2016. Subsequently, by issuing another letter dated July 20,

2017, it was clarified that, in terms of F.R. 9(23)(b), the petitioner was

granted a personal pay of Rs. 5,509/- per month, which, according to F.R.

37, would be reduced by any increase in the petitioner's pay and would

cease as soon as the petitioner's pay was increased by an amount equal to

the personal pay.

17. These two letters dated December 22, 2016 and July 20, 2017 were

brought to the attention of the Bench by preferring two applications, being

CAN 363 of 2017 and CAN 7237 of 2017 respectively in connection with the

writ petition, being C.O.C.T. 01 of 2016. However, as the learned Tribunal,

acting as the Court of first instance, did not consider those two letters, the

Bench dismissed the applications and writ petitions by passing an order

dated 7.8.2019. In that order, the Bench observed that the order dated

7.8.2019 would not preclude the petitioner from seeking appropriate

remedy before the learned Tribunal.

18. The petitioner alleges that the VECC arranged a high-level scientific

training/workshop on IPv6, Linux System Administration, and

Networking, as well as training in Multi-Protocol Label Switching,

conducted by IIT Kanpur, the University of Calcutta, and the Inter-

University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics (IUCAA), Pune,

respectively, for him.

19. According to the petitioner's perception, the respondents should have

recognized his 13 years of past service rendered at ERNET India and

placed him in a Grade Pay of Rs. 7,600/-, considering his qualification of

M.Sc. (IT). However, since the respondents appointed him to a post of

Work Assistant/A, which, according to the petitioner, went against the

extant recruitment rules, he was compelled to approach the learned

Tribunal with OA 1206 of 2019.

20. The learned Tribunal, by an order dated May 2, 2022, dismissed the

OA. It refused to accept the petitioner's contention that he is entitled to a

Grade Pay of Rs. 7,600 and that his past service with ERNET India should

be counted towards qualifying service. Hence, the writ petition.

Submissions:

21. Mr. Bandyopadhyay, learned advocate representing the petitioner,

submits that by an order dated February 7, 2014, passed in OA 818 of

2012, the learned Tribunal directed the VECC to take up the matter with

the appropriate authority to suitably absorb the petitioner into its

organization, if necessary, by providing him with the required training

and/or obtaining the necessary sanction for relaxing essential conditions

from the appropriate authority.

22. He submits that, alleging wilful violation of the order dated February

7, 2014, the petitioner filed a contempt petition (CPC 163 of 2014) before

the learned Tribunal. In contrast, the respondents challenged the order

dated February 7, 2014, in WP.CT. 93 of 2014, which was dismissed by an

order dated March 2, 2015, thereby affirming the order dated February 7,

2014. The respondents then took the matter to the Hon'ble Supreme Court

by filing Special Leave Petition (S.L.P. (Civil) No. 12317 of 2015), which

was also dismissed by an order dated July 6, 2015.

23. Mr. Bandyopadhyay argues that although the order of the learned

Tribunal was ultimately affirmed by both this Hon'ble Court and the

Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioner has been appointed to the post of 'Work

Assistant/A' with a monthly salary of Rs. 27,319/-, which, according to

him, is comparable to a Group-D post. He contends that no work has been

assigned to the petitioner.

24. He argues that before this appointment, the petitioner worked as a

'System Administrator' and received training for that position, but he was

ultimately appointed to the post of 'Work Assistant/A'. He asserts that the

learned Tribunal had directed the VECC to absorb the petitioner into a

suitable post. He submits that the petitioner has pursued M.Sc. in

Information Technology and is, therefore, qualified for the post of System

Administrator.

25. He submits that had the petitioner been appointed as of February 7,

2014, the date of the Tribunal's decision, his scale of pay would have been

higher. He argues that the respondents terminated the petitioner's service

and issued a fresh appointment solely to avoid regularizing his service and

to deprive him of the benefits accrued from his 13 years of service. He

further submits that, due to the loss of wages from this illegal termination,

the petitioner is entitled to back wages. He asserts that, based on his

qualifications and experience, the petitioner is entitled to a grade pay of

Rs. 7,600/-.

26. He further argues that, according to the latest recruitment and

promotion norms applicable to VECC employees, candidates with an M.Sc.

qualification are eligible for the posts of SO(C), TO(C), SO(D), and TO(D)

with 4 years of experience, while candidates with 9 years of experience are

eligible for the posts of SO(E) and TO(E). He also clarifies that the

requisite qualification for the post of SO(C) is an M.Sc., whereas for the

post of SO(E), a minimum of 60% marks in the last examination is

required. He asserts that the petitioner, who last held the post of System

Administrator and holds an M.Sc. degree in Information Technology with

79% marks, should therefore have been appointed to the post of Scientific

Officer with a grade pay of Rs. 7600/-.

27. He cited examples to illustrate that some employees with lesser

qualifications have been appointed to posts such as Scientific Assistant/F,

SO/F, SO/D, SO/E, and Technician/F. He submits that the post of Work

Assistant/A did not exist in the Recruitment & Promotion Norms, and in

his view, the petitioner has been appointed to a non-existent post.

28. He submits that the petitioner possesses the requisite qualifications

and was appointed following a selection process against a sanctioned

vacancy. Therefore, the petitioner's appointment cannot be claimed to be

illegal, but it may be considered irregular. According to him, the

petitioner's service should have been regularized either in the post of

System Administrator or Scientific Officer. To support his argument, he

relies on the decisions in (2020) 19 SCC 480 (Siraj Ahmad v. State of Uttar

Pradesh & Ors.) and 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 2497 (State of Maharashtra v.

Meena A. Kuwalekar & Ors.).

29. In response, Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate representing the

respondents, defends the order challenged in this writ petition by

contending that the petitioner was engaged as a Technical Assistant for

ERNET India on a purely contractual basis, starting from 20.07.1999, at a

consolidated salary of Rs. 4000/- per month. He further asserts that the

expenditure for this salary was incurred by ERNET India as operational

expenses, based on the MoU executed between ERNET India and VECC.

30. The petitioner's salary was enhanced periodically, and he was re-

designated as System Engineer/System Administrator in ERNET India.

The MoU ceased to operate as of 30.06.2013 and consequently, the

petitioner's service was discontinued as of that date. Prior to the cessation

of his service, the petitioner used to draw a monthly salary of Rs. 27, 169/-.

31. He submits that to implement the order dated 7.2.2014 passed in OA

818 of 2012, a committee was formed. In its report, the committee noted

that the petitioner had acquired 51.1%, 55.6%, 39.3%, and 79% in

Madhyamik, H.S., B.Sc., and M.Sc. (IT) respectively. The committee also

observed that the petitioner's M.Sc. (IT) was not recognized by the DAE,

making him ineligible for the post of Technical Officer, which required a

postgraduate degree with a minimum of 60% marks. Additionally, the

committee found that the petitioner was not eligible for the post of

Scientific Assistant, which required a B.Sc. or Diploma in Engineering with

60% marks. Based on his qualifications and the marks obtained in the

above examinations, the petitioner was deemed ineligible for the posts of

Technician, UDC, and LDC. Consequently, according to his qualification,

the petitioner was appointed to the post of 'Work Assistant/A,' and his last

drawn pay at ERNET India was maintained.

32. He argues that the petitioner accepted his engagement as Technical

Assistant at ERNET India with a clear understanding that it was purely on

a temporary basis. In 1998, there were no regular posts at VECC with a

scale of pay of Rs. 4000/- per month. Posts at VECC are filled through a

different selection procedure, which includes a training period for selected

candidates before their appointment to various positions. According to

him, the petitioner is not suitable for appointment to a post at VECC with a

grade pay of Rs. 7600/-. He further argues that by accepting the offer for

the post of 'Work Assistant/A,' the petitioner is now estopped from raising

any objections to his appointment.

33. He further argues that the petitioner cannot claim negative equality by

asserting that, because there were some appointments made with lesser

qualifications, he should be appointed to a higher post despite his own

lesser qualifications. He asserts that the learned Tribunal, after

considering all aspects, has rightly rejected the petitioner's claim for

appointment to a post with a grade pay of Rs. 7600 and for back wages.

Analysis:

34. Therefore, the limited issue we are tasked with for resolving is whether

the learned Tribunal erred in rejecting the petitioner's claim for

appointment to the post of Scientific Officer or any other technical post

with a grade pay of Rs. 7600/- (as per the recommendations of the 6th Pay

Commission), for recognition of his past service as a contractual employee

at the ERNET Transit Node and for back wages.

35. Admittedly, advertisement No. VECC-1/98 specified that the post of

Technical Assistant for the ERNET Transit Node was purely on a

temporary basis for a period of one year with a consolidated monthly

salary of Rs. 4000/-. The requisite educational qualifications for the post,

as prescribed in the advertisement, were: i) a B.Sc. or Diploma from a

recognized polytechnic, and ii) a two-year Diploma in Computer Software

Applications, along with two years of experience in computers under

DOS/WINDOWS/UNIX. Additionally, it was specified therein that

preference would be given to candidates with experience in E-mail and

networking activities.

36. According to the terms and conditions of the MoU executed between

VECC and ERNET India, which formalized the relationship and outlined

the operational modalities for the PoP within VECC/DAE, the required

manpower would be hired on a contractual basis as per VECC's policy. No

personnel employed for operations at the node would be on the rolls of

ERNET India. Instead, their salaries and other benefits would be paid by

ERNET India through operational expenses.

37. The petitioner participated in the selection process for the post and was

successful. Consequently, the petitioner was engaged in the post. The MoU

was extended periodically, and accordingly, the petitioner's engagement

was also extended. In 2012, the petitioner was called for an interview for

the position of 'System Administrator' at ERNET India and was ultimately

engaged in that post for one year. The MoU ceased to be effective as of

30.06.2013, and consequently, the petitioner's service was discontinued

with effect from 30.06.2013.

38. The petitioner challenged the engagement by filing OA 818 of 2012. As

noted previously, by an order dated 7.2.2014, this OA was disposed of with

a direction to VECC 'to take up the matter with the appropriate authority

to suitably absorb the applicant into its organization, if required, by

providing him with the required training and/or obtaining necessary

sanction for relaxation of essential conditions from the appropriate

authority, and in due regard to the recommendations referred to

hereinabove, pass appropriate orders within 3 months.' The petitioner

was allowed to continue in the post following the interim order issued by

the learned Tribunal.

39. As noted earlier, the order dated 7.2.2014 was affirmed by both the

Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner was

paid a sum of Rs. 1,98,063/- and was initially offered an ad hoc

appointment as Work Assistant/A with a consolidated salary of Rs. 27,319,

as per the letter dated 22.12.2016. Subsequently, by another letter dated

20.07.2017, the petitioner was offered a substantive appointment as Work

Assistant/A effective from 28.10.2016.

40. Pursuant to the liberty granted to him, the petitioner filed OA 1206 of

2019 to challenge the validity of the two letters dated 22.12.2016 and

20.07.2017. As noted earlier, this OA was dismissed by the order that is

now under challenge in this writ petition.

41. The petitioner's main argument is that, with a M.Sc. (IT) qualification

and 9 years of working experience, he is entitled to be absorbed into the

post of Scientific Officer (C) or Technical Officer (C) with a grade pay of Rs.

7600. Additionally, the petitioner was provided training for holding the

position of Scientific Officer.

42. In contrast, the committee formed to implement the order dated

7.2.2014 found that, since the M.Sc. (IT) qualification obtained by the

petitioner from Allahabad Agriculture Institute was not recognized by the

DAE and he scored less than 40% in B.Sc., he was ineligible for the posts of

Scientific Assistant, Technician, or UDC at VECC. Consequently, the

committee denied his absorption into any post equivalent to Scientific

Assistant E and rejected his claim for a grade pay of Rs. 7600/-.

43. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondents justified their action in

not accepting the M.Sc. qualification from Allahabad Agriculture Institute

by citing decisions from various Hon'ble High Courts. In its order dated

2.5.2022, the learned Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in

Civil Appeal Nos. 17869-17870/2017 (Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd. v.

Rabi Sankar Patro & Ors.), observed that the 1994 AICTE Regulations do

not apply to Deemed-to-be Universities and suspended all degrees

awarded in Engineering by such institutions. The Hon'ble High Court of

Gauhati, in WP(C) 5800 of 2018 (Bikramjit Das v. State of Assam), refused

to consider a Master's degree in Education obtained from Sam

Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences through

off-campus mode. Similarly, the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir,

in SWP 473 of 2012 (Javaid Ahmad Dar v. State of J&K & Ors.), also

rejected the petitioner's claim based on a degree obtained from Allahabad

Agriculture Institute. As noticed earlier, the petitioner obtained the

qualification from Allahabad Agriculture Institute through distance

education mode.

44. The petitioner cannot deny that he secured less than 60% marks in

both the Madhyamik and H.S. examinations, and 39% in the B.Sc.

examination. According to the norms of the DAE, an essential qualification

for the posts of Scientific Assistant (SA) (B), SA(C), SA(D), SA(E), and

SA(F) is a minimum of 60% marks in B.Sc., which the petitioner did not

achieve. Therefore, he cannot be considered for these posts. Additionally,

the qualification for the UDC post at VECC requires 50% marks in B.Sc.,

which the petitioner also does not meet. Since his M.Sc. (IT) degree is not

recognized by DAE, he was deemed unsuitable for any scientific post at

VECC. The Tribunal reviewed recent vacancy notifications and concluded

that the petitioner was not suitable for any scientific or technical posts, nor

for any position with a grade pay of Rs. 7600/.

45. Admittedly, the petitioner did not hold a regular post at VECC or

ERNET India, and did not occupy any position equivalent to a post with a

grade pay of Rs. 7600/- (a grade held by a Gazetted Officer). The learned

Tribunal observed that there was no mandate for the respondents to relax

entry-level qualifications for any Scientific and Technical posts, and the

petitioner cannot claim absorption in any regular post equivalent to his

contractual position.

46. In his last-ditch attempt, the petitioner cited examples showing that

some employees were appointed to various posts with lesser qualifications.

However, relying on the decisions from the Hon'ble Apex Court, reported

in (2007) 5 SCC 519 (Bihar Public Service Commission & Ors. v. Kamini &

Ors.), (2010) 2 SCC 422 (Union of India & Anr. v. Kartick Ch. Mondal &

Anr.) and Civil Appeals Nos. 3904-95 of 2020 with nos. 3907-34 of 2020

(Pankajeshwar Shara & Ors. v. State of J&K. & Ors.), the learned Tribunal

observed that, although some ineligible candidates were treated as eligible,

this does not mean the petitioner should also be treated as eligible if he is

not. Such action does not invoke the equality clause enshrined in Article 14

of the Constitution of India. It is clear that the concept of equality is

positive and cannot be enforced negatively. An illegality cannot be

perpetuated under the guise of the 'equality doctrine'.

47. Therefore, since the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that, in the absence

of approval of AICTE, the M.Sc. (IT) degree obtained from Allahabad

Agriculture Institute through distance education/off-campus mode cannot

be recognized or accepted, no direction can be given to the respondents to

accept the petitioner's M.Sc. (IT) degree. The matter was reviewed by the

appropriate authority, which refused to relax the entry qualifications for

any post to accommodate the petitioner. Admittedly, setting eligibility

criteria falls within the exclusive domain of an employer and cannot be

subject to judicial review unless it is found to be arbitrary, unreasonable,

or not aligned with the nature of the services for which the appointments

are to be made.

48. Indisputably, one of the essential qualifications for any Scientific or

Technical post as well as for the post of UDC in VECC, is a minimum 60%

marks in B.Sc. Therefore, due to his failure to secure 60% marks in B.Sc.,

the petitioner cannot be considered suitable for any Scientific or Technical

post as well as in the post of UDC in VECC. Furthermore, the petitioner did

not hold any regular post either in VECC or in ERNET India. The order

dated 7.2.2024 did not mandate his absorption into a post equivalent to

the one he held as a contractual employee in ERNET India. The

petitioner's engagement with ERNET India was for a specific purpose

under the terms of the MoU, which has since ceased to operate. It is a well-

recognized principle that continuation in any post by virtue of an interim

order of any Court or Tribunal does not entitle an employee to

regularization in that post.

49. In Siraj Ahmad (supra), the petitioner was appointed on an ad hoc

basis to the post of Junior Engineer following a selection process, which

was initiated without the concurrence of UPSC. While in service, Mr.

Ahmad obtained a B.Sc. (Engineering) degree and subsequently claimed

promotion. The Hon'ble Court held that Mr. Ahmad's appointment,

though irregular, was made against a sanctioned post and through a

selection procedure, and thus directed that his promotion be granted. In

State of Maharashtra v. Meena A. Kuwalekar (supra), the respondents

were appointed against sanctioned posts. In the present case, the

petitioner was not engaged against any sanctioned post. As noted earlier,

the petitioner was engaged for a specific purpose under the terms of a MoU

between VECC and ERNET India. Although the MoU's operation and the

petitioner's engagement were extended from time to time, the MoU

eventually ceased, and the petitioner's service was discontinued.

Therefore, Mr. Ghosh's reliance on these two judgments is misplaced, as

they are distinguishable on their facts.

50. We may refer to two decisions from the Hon'ble Supreme Court: (2001)

8 SCC 532 (Bhanu Prasad Panda v. Chancellor, Sambalpur University) and

(2009) 4 SCC 170 (Union of India v. Dharam Pal). In both judgments, the

Hon'ble Apex Court held that, in the absence of an enabling provision for

granting relaxation, no relaxation of essential academic qualifications can

be made. Even if such a power is provided under the Statute, it cannot be

exercised arbitrarily. The petitioner has not demonstrated any rule or

provision of any rule enabling VECC to relax the minimum educational

qualifications for any post. In the celebrated decision of Uma Devi,

reported at (2006) 4 SCC 1, it was held that there is no fundamental right

in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on

contractual basis, to claim absorption in a particular post. However, in that

judgment, it was ruled that if a person has worked for 10 years or more in a

duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of an interim order

from any Court or Tribunal, such a person can claim regularization.

However, if a person is appointed without the prescribed qualifications,

such an appointment is considered illegal. Therefore, no direction can be

given upon the employer to relax prescribed qualification to accommodate

any employee engaged on temporary basis. In the present case, no

materials have been provided to demonstrate that the petitioner received

training in accordance with the order of the learned Tribunal, or that there

was an assurance of his absorption into a Scientific or Technical post with

a grade pay of Rs. 7600/- upon completion of the training.

Conclusion:

51. In this context, we are of the considered opinion that the learned

Tribunal, after assessing all the materials, arrived at specific factual

findings and, by rendering a reasoned decision, rejected the petitioner's

claim for absorption into any suitable post with a grade pay of Rs. 7600/-

(as per the 6th Pay Commission recommendations), for recognition of his

service on contractual basis at ERNET India and for back wages. We did

not find any error, let alone a patent or jurisdictional error, in the decision-

making process, nor any substantial miscarriage of justice that would

warrant interference with the order challenged in the writ petition.

Order: