Ram Prakash Rai And Ors. vs Bihar Information Centre And Ors.
1996 Latest Caselaw 46 Del

JUDGMENT

M.K. Sharma, J.

(1) Since these writ petitions involve identical facts and raise similar question of law, I propose to dispose of these writ petitions by this common judgment and order.

(2) The petitioners were appointed on daily wages to different posts at Billiar Information Centre, New Delhi, under the Department of Information and Public Relations. Separate appointment orders were issued to the petitioners by the Press Adviser, Bihar Information Centre, New Delhi, stating, inter alia, that as per direction the concerned petitioner was being appointed on ad hoc, temporary basis against sanctioned vacant posts. The petitioners were thus continuing in service and subsequently the petitioners preferred these writ petitions seeking a direction to the respondents to regularise them in services from the date they joined their services.

(3) This Court by interim orders passed in these petitions directed that the services of the petitioners should not be terminated. By virtue of the said interim orders, the petitioners are working in their respective posts till date in the Bihar Information Centre.

(4) Mr. K.K. Rai, appearing for the petitioner drew my attention to the various annexures annexed to the writ petition to prove and establish that the petitioners were appointed by the competent Appointing Authority or atleast with their knowledge and consent, which is refuted by Mr. Aggarwal, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. Mr. Rai also brought to my notice the admitted fact that about 12 similarly situated persons have since been regularised in pursuance of the order of the Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court and submitted that in view of such position of similarly situated persons having been regularised by the respondents and there being no distinguishing feature in their case with that of the present petitioners, similar treatment should also be given to the petitioners and they be regularised in the light of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in that respect in G.C. Ghosh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., reported in 1991, Suppi. (2) Supreme Court Cases 497.

(5) Mr. Aggarwal, on the other hand, relied upon the ratio of the decision of State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, reported in 1992 (4) Section 118 and submitted that regularisation of service of the petitioners cannot beautomatic. He very fairly stated that if the petitioners except Smt. Kanchan Jha, the petitioner in C.W.P. 425/1991, give consent to appear in a screening test to ascertain their suitability and eligibility, the respondents are willing to hold such a screening test exclusively for the petitioners to examine the feasibility of their regulation on the basis of the aforesaid factors alone. Regarding Smt. Kanchan Jha, the learned Counsel stated that she being a female and sweeper would be regularised by the respondents without going through the process of screening test.

(6) To the aforesaid suggestion of the learned Counsel for the respondents, the learned Counsel for the petitioners on instructions from the petitioners agreed to and gave their consent to appear in such a screening test to be conducted by the respondents exclusively for the petitioners to ascertain the feasibility of their regularisation.

(7) In the light of the statements made by the learned Counsel for the parties, and with their consent, the following directions are issued :- (I)The respondents shall hold a screening test exclusively for the petitioners excepting Smt. Kanchan Jha, to examine the feasibility of their regularisation within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) The petitioners of the present writ petition; except Smt. Kanchan Jha, petitioner in C.W.P. 425 /1991 shall present themselves for such screening test as and when held and called upon to appear. (iii) The aforesaid screening test shall be held to ascertain only the suitability and eligibility of the petitioners for such regularisation. (iv) In the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 51 of Piara Singh's case (supra) it is ordered that while holding the screening test, the respondents shall adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person. (v) The service of Smt. Kanchan Jha, presently working as sweeper shall be regularised without going through the process of screening. (vi) That on completion of the process of screening test, orders of regularisation of the services of the selected petitioners shall be issued within a period of two months therefrom. Unsuccessful candidates amongst the petitioners, if any, shall vacate their office immediately on receipt of order from the respondents. (vii) The services of the petitioners shall be continued as casual workers till the selection process is over.

(8) In terms of aforesaid directions and observations, these writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs.