Pushpa Kumari And Ors. vs Gail (India) And Anr.
2004 Latest Caselaw 1438 Del

JUDGMENT

B.A. Khan, J.

1. This appeal is directed against writ court orders dated 17.3.2004 and 6.9.2004 dismissing appellants' writ petition.

2. Appellants are visually handicapped persons. They were selected for on-job training with Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL) which was later extended by six months more. They were then asked to appear for computer proficiency test and interview by letter dated 31.8.2001 and were engaged as Assistant (Training) (S-3 Level) for one year on a consolidated stipend of Rs.6000/- per month by order passed by respondents in October 2001 and subject to various terms and conditions, one of which stipulated that period of training shall not be reckoned as service with GAIL. They were again called for computer proficiency test and interview in September 2002. They claim that they appeared in this test and interview but its result was not declared for which they filed WP(C) No. 17102-04/04 which was later dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 27.10.2004. Later they received letter dated 30.1.2004 from respondents informing them that their training period had come to an end on 31.1.2004. They felt aggrieved of it and filed WP(C) No. 2117-19/04 seeking quashing of this letter dated 30.1.2004 and a direction to respondents to regularise their services from 9.10.2001 and to pay them regular pay scales attached to the post of Assistant (Training) (S-3 level).

3. Appellants' writ petition was opposed by respondents taking the stand that petitioners were selected in job training under their scheme for imparting on-job training to handicapped persons. But they could not reach the desired level as a result of which their training period was got extended to nearly four years.

4. It was also submitted by them that they were under the mandate of the Persons with Disabilities Act of 1995 whereby they could not make an appointment to the post reserved for a disabled person otherwise than by inviting applications from the Special Employment Exchange.

5. The writ court, on consideration of the matter, held:-

Since vacancies exist for employment of visually handicapped persons, Petitioners in WP(C) No. 2117-19/2004 would be eligible t apply and on their applying, GAIL would consider their candidature for the post for which requisition has been received from the special employment exchange. Lest right of other similarly situated persons is taken away, GAIL would issue a public advertisement inviting applications for all visually handicapped persons who would be eligible, to apply for the posts in question. Irrespective of the fact whether the applicants are sponsored through the special employment exchange or not all eligible candidates would be considered in the selection process.

6. Appellants are aggrieved of disposal of their writ petition by this order. Their grievance is that writ court had mis appreciated the case and had overlooked that they were appointed to the post of Assistant (Training) (S-3 level). The writ court had also failed to deal with the other reliefs prayed in the writ petition including that appellants were entitled to regularisation of their services and to a regular pay scale attached to the post of Assistant (Training) (S-3 level).

7. It goes without saying that writ court had not dealt with the case as set up by appellants. But even so the relief prayed for by them was not liable to be granted. Because even if their case was taken at its best, they were only engaged as Assistant (Training) (S-3 level) for a period of one year and on a consolidated stipend of Rs.6000/- per month which was subject to various terms and conditions, one of which was that their training/engagement should not be reckoned as a service with GAIL for consideration of various benefits like seniority, etc. This engagement was only for one year and that too on a consolidated stipend of Rs.6000/- per month. Therefore, it could not be treated to be an appointment to the post of Assistant (Training) (S-3 level) if at all there was any such post existing in the GAIL. More so, as it was subject to various terms and conditions which made it clear that it would not be reckoned as a service with GAIL for any service benefit.

8. As regards appellants' claim of regularisation, there is no basis or foundation laid by them to show that this right of regularisation accrued to them by reason of their engagement only for a limited period. The right of regularisation has to in her before it can be invoked and a mere engagement on a post and that too on a consolidated stipend for a limited period would not entitle appellants to any regularisation of such engagement if the post is otherwise to be filled up by a particular mode of recruitment under the relevant rules.

9. This obviates the necessity of examining whether provisions of Persons with Disabilities Act were applicable to appellants' case at all. Even if these were not held applicable, still their claim for appointment against the post of Assistant (Training) (S-3 level) was not sustainable as per the terms and conditions of their engagement.

10. This appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.