Nihal Singh vs Uoi & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 4657 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No. 627/1999

%                                                 7th October, 2013

NIHAL SINGH                                       ..... Petitioner
                          Through:       None.


                          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. No one appears for the petitioner although its 1.05 P.M. No one

appeared for the petitioner on 30.08.2012 and 01.02.2013.

2. Petitioner impugns the action of termination of his services as a

temporary employee. Since the petitioner was a temporary employee, his

services could be terminated in accordance with the applicable rules

being Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. I may note

that a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary,

State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1 has held that

casual or temporary or contractual employees have no right to claim

permanent absorption in service. In the case of Umadevi (supra) the

following ratio has been laid down:-

"(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 Uma Devi 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. In view of the above, the petitioner being a temporary employee and

his temporary employment was terminated in accordance with the rules, and

the fact that temporary employee has no legal right to claim for permanency,

I find no merit in this writ petition.

4. The petition is thus dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own

costs.

OCTOBER 07, 2013                                  VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
godara