Karam Chandra vs Uoi & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 5838 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) 2829/2000

%                                                  December 17, 2013

      KARAM CHANDRA                           ......Petitioner
                 Through: Mr. Awadesh Kumar, Advocate.

                          VERSUS

      UOI & ORS.                                         ...... Respondents

                          Through:       None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)


1.    Petitioner had only a contractual appointment.           Since this

contractual appointment was terminated, petitioner claims reinstatement

in service.

2. It is now the settled legal position in view of the judgment of the

Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi &

Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1 that a contractual appointee cannot seek

regularization or reinstatement in a post, as a contractual appointee will

only have a right for a contractual period. The Supreme Court in the case

of Umadevi (supra) has laid down the following ratio:-

"(I) The questions to be asked before regularization are:-

(a)(i) Was there a sanctioned post (court cannot order creation of posts because finances of the state may go haywire), (ii) is there a vacancy, (iii) are the persons qualified persons and (iv) are the appointments through regular recruitment process of calling all possible persons and which process involves inter-se competition among the candidates

(b) A court can condone an irregularity in the appointment procedure only if the irregularity does not go to the root of the matter.

(II) For sanctioned posts having vacancies, such posts have to be filled by regular recruitment process of prescribed procedure otherwise, the constitutional mandate flowing from Articles 14,16,309, 315, 320 etc is violated. (III) In case of existence of necessary circumstances the government has a right to appoint contract employees or casual labour or employees for a project, but, such persons form a class in themselves and they cannot claim equality(except possibly for equal pay for equal work) with regular employees who form a separate class. Such temporary employees cannot claim legitimate expectation of absorption/regularization as they knew when they were appointed that they were temporary inasmuch as the government did not give and nor could have given an assurance of regularization without the regular recruitment process being followed. Such irregularly appointed persons cannot claim to be regularized alleging violation of Article

21. Also the equity in favour of the millions who await public employment through the regular recruitment process outweighs the equity in favour of the limited number of irregularly appointed persons who claim regularization. (IV) Once there are vacancies in sanctioned posts such vacancies cannot be filled in except without regular recruitment process, and thus neither the court nor the executive can frame a scheme to absorb or regularize persons appointed to such posts without following the regular recruitment process.

(V) At the instance of persons irregularly appointed the process of regular recruitment shall not be stopped. Courts should not pass interim orders to continue employment of such irregularly appointed persons because the same will result in stoppage of recruitment through regular appointment procedure.

(VI) If there are sanctioned posts with vacancies, and qualified persons were appointed without a regular recruitment process, then, such persons who when the judgment of Umadevi is passed have worked for over 10 years without court orders, such persons be regularized under schemes to be framed by the concerned organization. (VII) The aforesaid law which applies to the Union and the States will also apply to all instrumentalities of the State governed by Article 12 of the Constitution".

3. The Supreme Court in Umadevi's case (supra) has observed that a

contractual appointee has no legitimate expectation for regularization or

regular employment, and in any case, people who await public

employment through regular means, equity in favour of these persons

outweigh the so-called equity in favour of persons who have not been

appointed through the regular recruitment process.

4. Accordingly, since admittedly petitioner was only a contractual

employee and his contractual services were terminated, the ratio of the

judgment in Umadevi's case squarely comes into play and petitioner

cannot be granted reinstatement in services.

5. The writ petition is accordingly, therefore, dismissed. Parties are

left to bear their own costs.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J DECEMBER 17, 2013 KA