Satish Kumar Singh And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 687 Del

JUDGMENT

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. The Writ Petitioners in these proceedings seek a direction that employees working with the Central Tibetan Schools Administration (CTSA) who are not Indian nationals, ought not to be regularised or given permanent employment.

2. The admitted facts of the case are that the CTSA was established sometime in the year 1961 after the influx of Tibetan refugees in India. These schools were to cater to the children of Tibetan nationals who were compelled to cross over and settle in India. When the petition was initially filed, there were four Petitioners. Counsel for the Respondent submitted today that Petitioners No. 2 to 4 have indicated that they wish to withdraw from these proceedings and are not interested in pressing the same. It was also submitted that the first Petitioner cannot have surviving grievance since he was terminated from the employment.

3. Mr. Bareja, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, placed reliance on the circular/instructions issued by the Central Government in the year 1987 which provided inter alia that a candidate for appointment to any Central service or post must be a citizen of India or must fall in certain categories. Clause 1(d) stipulates that a Tibetan refugee, coming to India before 1.1.1962, with the intention of permanently settling in India (in whose favor a certificate of eligibility was issued by the Government of India) would be entitled to consideration for a civil post. Counsel also relied upon Clause 2.3 to say that appointment of non-Indians to civil post under the Government of India could be made only in exceptional circumstances for short period, and that such appointments would be on contract. It was also pointed out that Clause 2.4 obliged the Government to take suitable steps in the while appointing non- Indians to take trained Indians to fill such posts on regular posts. He also relied on other conditions which require security clearance etc.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that although the Petitioners No. 2 to 4 had indicated that they were not interested in these proceedings in fact they were coerced into making such a statements. He further submitted that the termination from the employment of the first Petitioner would not come in the way of his maintaining these proceedings because his grievance vis-a-vis the regular or permanent employment of non-Indians and Tibetan refugees, as a citizen of India would survive.

5. Learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that that Government of India had issued a directive to the CTSA on 17.10.2001 which is to the following effect :-

To

The Secretary, CTSA, TC Jena Complex, 2 Netaji Subhash Marg, Dariya Ganj, New Delhi

Sub : Continued appointment of 236 Tibetan Refugees under Central Tibetan Schools Administration (CTSA)

Sir,

The matter regarding appointment of non-Indians CTSA was considered by this Ministry in consultation with the Department of Personnel and Training and Ministry of External Affairs and it has been decided that in future Tibetan Refugees should not be appointed by the CTSA on regular basis in contravention of the existing rules and regulations as contained in DOPT's OM No. 1403/2/79- Estt(B) dated 11.10.1979.

Regarding the existing Tibetan Employees of CTSA, it has been decided that one time relaxation for 236 Tibetan Refugees working under CTSA may be granted to continue on their existing terms and conditions of employment in CTSA till they retire and/or resign. Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(O.P. Banwari)

Section Officer

6. It was also submitted that the Central Government schools were set up and managed for the purpose of Tibetan refugees and that the Petitioners cannot claim any grievance in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

7. Having gone through the materials on record and hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that these proceedings cannot be maintained. Even if withdrawal of the Petitioners 2 to 4 is for the moment ignored and the issues raised by them are to be gone into the Supreme Court has ruled in its decisions that there cannot be 'public interest'litigation in service matters and that no person without grievance has locus standi to maintain proceedings on such issues; there ought to be a direct nexus or proximate cause that would touch upon the grievances of the party concerned (See Dr. Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendera Kumar Mishra ). Admittedly, the Petitioners 2 to 4 are serving permanent employees working with the CTSA. The mere circumstance of the non-citizen's regularization diminishing such Petitioner's chances of promotion cannot ipso facto lead to this Court entertaining these writ petitions. It is well settled that chances of promotion are not inviolate or vested rights.

8. As far as the locus standi of the first Petitioner is concerned it has not been denied that during pendency of the proceedings he was terminated on account of alleged misconduct. Therefore, the question of his having any surviving grievance would not arise.

9. In spite of the above conclusions, I would proceed to deal with the contentions raised by the Petitioners since Mr. Bareja urged that the matter involves public interest. A consideration of the 1987 handbook which has been produced would disclose that it relates to recruitment to posts under the Central Government. Clause 2.3 enacts a bar for appointment of non-Indians to civil posts under the Government of India. The question as to whether what constitutes a 'civil post'is not res integra. It has been subject matter of consideration in several decisions of the Supreme Court, The Court held, in State of Assam and Ors. v. Kanak Chandra Dutta that in the case of a person holding a post under the State/Union; there must be a master- servant relationship between the two. This decision was later followed in State of Gujarat v. Raman Keshavlal Soni . It was also ruled by the Court that a post under the Government or a civil post would involve discharge of functions of the Government, where an incumbent would be entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India or subject to the Rules or enactments under proviso of Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The posts in question, in the CTSA (which is admittedly an autonomous body) cannot be described as 'civil posts'although the CTSA is fully funded by the Government of India.

10. Learned counsel had also submitted that the employees working in the CTSA are governed by CCS Rules. The circumstance that that funding of the CTSA is almost exclusively by the Central Government or that the terms and regulations by CCS Rules would not be determinative of the point. As held in Dr. S.L.Aggarwal v. Gen. Manager Hindustan Steel Ltd. employees in public sector organizations or corporations exclusively under control of the Central Government and which may otherwise fall under Article 12 cannot be considered as holders of civil posts. Equally the fact that the CCS (CCA) Rules are applicable to such organizations does not render such posts 'civil post'because the coverage of the Rules, as per Rule 3 (1) is to Central Government servants including Civilian Government officials in the defense departments. Admittedly, appointment of the employees in the CTSA cannot be considered as a Central Government employees. By virtue of Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, CTSA is a notified organization as far as service matters are concerned but the very same provision makes a distinction between the holders of civil posts or Government servants and others, as per Section 14(1). Service disputes of other organizations whose employees are autonomous bodies can be notified under Section 14(2).

11. In view of the above circumstances and also in view of the statement made by the Respondent that a one time exception would be made to regularise the 236 Tibetan nationals, who are refugees, working under the CTSA with as also the policy decision that no Tibetan refugees would be appointed on regular posts contrary to existing guidelines, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served in retaining the proceedings on the file.

12. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.