Gujarat High Court
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs Trivedi Pankajkumar Bhikhalal on 3 October, 2024
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia, Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/786/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.786 of 2018
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4853 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2018
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 786 of 2018
With
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3274 of 2017
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4853 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Sd/-
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed NO
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy NO
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Versus
TRIVEDI PANKAJKUMAR BHIKHALAL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR D D VYAS, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR DEEP D VYAS(3869) for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MR YATIN OZA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR ASHISH B DESAI(5163) for
the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Page 1 of 22
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Thu Oct 03 2024 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 03 21:48:33 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/786/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2024
undefined
Date : 03/10/2024
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present appeal filed under clause 15 of
Letters Patent, 1865 emanates from the judgement
and order dated 10.10.2017, wherein and whereby
the learned Single Judge while allowing the
captioned writ petition has directed the
appellant-Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to
absorb the respondent as a permanent employee on
the post of Teacher of Physical Education.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The respondent was appointed on 17.09.2007
pursuant to the advertisement issued by the
appellant-Corporation purely on contractual basis
on part time vide appointment order dated
14.09.2007 as a Physical Education Instructor /
Teacher on a fixed salary of Rs.2,500/- per month
initially for a period of 1 year and the same was
extended from time to time. It appears that the
appellant-Corporation published an advertisement
dated 09.03.2015 inviting application appointing
part time teacher of Physical Education on
contractual basis, which prompted the respondent
to file the captioned writ petition seeking
regular pay scale from the date of his
appointment.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/786/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2024
undefined
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-CORPORATION
3. Learned senior advocate Mr.Vyas appearing for
the appellant-Corporation at the outset, has
submitted that the direction issued by the
learned Single Judge was uncalled for as there is
no regular post of Physical Education Teacher in
the Corporation and the respondent was engaged on
part time basis on contractual terms initially
for a period of one year. It is submitted that
since there is no post available, there cannot be
any question of conferring the regular pay-scale.
He has submitted that the learned Single Judge
fell in error in issuing such directions. He has
referred to the recruitment process undertaken at
the relevant time by the appellant-Corporation
and has submitted that after the advertisement
was issued, there was number of applications
received by the Corporation and the Staff
Selection Committee, on 03.08.2007 examined 122
applications including the application of the
respondent. It is submitted that after such
applications were examined, the candidates were
called for an oral interview and accordingly, the
waiting list of 30 candidates was prepared, in
which the name of the respondent figures at Sr.
No.13. Pursuant to the aforesaid selection
process undertaken by the committee comprising of
5 members, the respondent was issued the
appointment order dated 14.09.2007 appointing him
on part time basis as Physical Education Teacher.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/786/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2024
undefined
He was appointed as Instructor in the Gym run by
the appellant-Corporation.
4. It is submitted that in fact, the Corporation
has not created any post of Physical Education
Teacher and Corporation is appointing such
persons like respondent in order to take their
service in Gyms or Swimming Pools etc. He has
submitted that the learned Single Judge has
incorrectly held that the respondent is entitled
for the regular pay-scale and he can be
regularized after completion of 5 years of
service in view of the policy of the Corporation.
It is submitted that in fact, the respondent has
tried to mislead this Court by placing reliance
on the form at Annexure-C at Page No.16 and the
instructions mentioned therein, more particularly
at Page No.24, Instructions Nos.19 and 20. It is
submitted that in fact, such instructions are not
applicable to the respondent and the same can
only be applied to the employees appointed by the
Corporation on regular and sanctioned post. It is
submitted that the form, which is annexed in the
writ petition is a blank form and does not
pertain to the respondent, who was appointed on
part time basis as a Physical Education Teacher
and there is no such sanctioned post in the
establishment and hence, the Corporation takes
service of the employees by preparing the waiting
list and as and when their service is needed, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/786/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2024
undefined
employees like the respondent are appointed on
part time contractual basis.
5. It is further contended that in fact, the
advertisement was issued by the Corporation on
17.04.2007 inviting application for appointing
part time Physical Education Teacher and there
was common advertisement issued for appointing
other employees along with Physical Education
Teacher on the post of Deputy City Engineer
(Light) as well as Assistant Health Officer
(Health Department) and a decision was taken that
the condition attached to the forms will only
apply to those candidates, who are governed under
the policy and it was decided that the
advertisement was in fact, misleading and the
same shall be issued for making appointments on
contractual basis. It is submitted that
accordingly, the Staff Selection Committee took
decision and passed the Resolution No.4 dated
03.08.2007 appointing part time Gym Instructor or
Physical Training Instructor on lump-sum monthly
salary of Rs.2,500/- on contractual basis and
accordingly, the contract was entered between the
respondent and Corporation, which was
subsequently extended from time to time.
6. It is also contended that in order to
frustrate the recruitment process, which was
initiated vide advertisement dated 09.03.2015,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/786/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2024
undefined
the respondent has approached this Court and
instead of applying in the advertisement, he has
obtained stay on the recruitment process.
Finally, he has submitted that the respondent
will be given preference and provided marks in
view of experience, as and when he files an
application pursuant to the advertisement. In
support of his submissions, he has placed
reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in
the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Ilmo Devi
and Anr., 2021 S.C.C. OnLine SC 899 and State of
Tamil Nadu and Anr. Vs. A.Singamuthu, (2017) 4
S.C.C. 113.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-EMPLOYEE
7. Vehemently opposing the aforesaid
submissions, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Oza
appearing for the respondent-employee has
submitted that the decision passed by the learned
Single Judge may not be interfered with. It is
submitted that it is not the case of the
appellant that the respondent was appointed by
way of back door entry as he has undergone the
recruitment process. It is submitted that the
learned Single Judge has precisely observed that
the respondent is entitled to regular pay-scale,
after completion of 5 years of service as per the
policy of the Corporation, which is annexed along
with the application form. He has referred to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/786/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2024
undefined
condition Nos.19 and 20 of the form annexed in
the writ petition and has submitted that as per
the policy, the respondent is entitled to be
placed in regular pay-scale, after completion of
5 years of service.
8. In support of his submissions, learned senior
advocate Mr.Oza has placed reliance on the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vinod
Kumar and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. , 2014
INSC 332. He has also referred to the decision of
the Apex Court in the case of Dhirendra Chamoli
And Anr. vs State Of U.P. , (1986) 1 S.C.C. 637
and has submitted that the work of the respondent
is perpetual in nature and hence, he cannot be
denied regularization. The reliance is also
placed by him on the decision of the Apex Court
in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs.
Jagjit Singh and Ors., (2017) 1 S.C.C. 148. He
has also placed reliance on the Apex Court in the
case of Somesh Thapliyal and Anr Vs. Vice
Chancellor, H.N.B. Garhwal University and Anr.,
(2021) 10 S.C.C. 116.
ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS AND PLEADINGS
a) Whether the appointment is back-door entry or
not?
9. We have heard the learned senior advocates
appearing for the respective parties and have
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/786/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2024
undefined
also perused the documents as pointed out by
them.
10. The learned Single Judge has directed the
appellant-Corporation to absorb the respondent on
the permanent post of Physical Education Teacher,
who was appointed on contractual basis. The
appointment order, which is placed on record
dated 14.09.2007, reflects that the respondent
was appointed as a part time Physical Education
Teacher and was allocated duties at Gym run by
the appellant-Corporation. It is further revealed
that the contract was also entered between the
Corporation and the respondent. The contract is
translated and incorporated as under:
"Contract Letter
Regarding allotment of work of the Part Time Physical
Training Teacher at Ambubhai Purani Vyayam Vidhyalay
( Physical Training School)
of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporatoin
Name of the Officer alloting (entrusted) the work :
Deputy Municipal Commissioner
( South Zone)
- on behalf of the Municipal
Commissioner
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation,
Sardar Patel Bhavan, Danapith,
Ahmedabad,
Name of the persons accepting the work :
Trivedi Pankajkumar Bhikhalal
Address of the person accepting the work :
B/304, Trishla Appartment, Opp. Sakar
School, New C.G. Road, Chandkheda,
Ahmedabad.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/786/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2024
undefined
Particulars of the work :
1. Shri Trivedi Pankajkumar B. is hereby engaged by way
of contract for the work of Part Time Physical
Training Teacher.
2. He shall have to carry out the work on the working
days of the Municipal Corporation as and when the
work is assigned to him.
Tenure of Contract :
Tenure of his contract shall be of one year
from the date of taking charge after the
execution of Contract Letter, that is, from
17/09/2007 to 16/09/2008.
Amount of Contract :
He shall be paid total Rs. 30,000/- as an amount of
Contract, and this amount shall be paid to him on
monthly basis in total 12 equal installments. The
amount of Service Tax which is to be paid on monthly
basis from the amount of Contract as per the
Government norms shall be borne by the Municipal
Coroporation and it shall be credited to the
concerned institution. The amount of contract shall
be paid from the account of Vya. Vi. (Vyayam
Vidhyalay)
Conditions of Contract :
1. He shall not be able to terminate the Work Contract
entruted to him before six months, if either of the
parties intend to cancel the contract in the
meanwhile, then 15% of the Contract amount shall
have to be paid.
2. The work entrusted to him shall be carried out
seriously and by adhering to the Rules and
Regulations of Municipal Corporation.
3. The amount for the day he does not carry out his
work shall be deducted proportionately from the
fixed amount of Contract.
4. He shall have to scrupulously follow all the Rules
and Regulations of the Municipal Corporation.
5. He shall not be able to practice elsewhere during
the concurrency of the tenure of contract.
Sd/- illegible sd/- illegible
Signature of the Contractee : Deputy Municipal Commissioner
Date : (South Zone)
Signature of Witnesses : Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/786/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2024
undefined
1. sd/- illegible
2. sd/- illegible "
11. The terms of the contract reveals that he was
appointed on contractual basis by the Corporation
for contract sum of Rs.30,000/-, equally divided
in 12 months. It appears that since the
advertisement dated 09.03.2015 was issued by the
Corporation inviting applications to appoint part
time Physical Education Teacher, he filed the
captioned writ petition for the following
prayers:
"[B] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of
Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or
direction directing that the selection of the
petitioner was a regular selection, after following
the regular process of selection and that he is
entitled for regular pay scale from the date of his
appointment and further direct the respondent
authority to give all consequential benefits,
monitory and non-monitory inclusive of the full back
wages.
[C] Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the
respondent authority that the service of the
petitioner cannot be terminated in any manner
contrary to one by which services of a permanent
employee can be terminated."
12. Thus, the prayer clause reveals that the
appellant has sought direction directing the
appellant-Corporation to consider his selection
as regular selection and to place him in the
regular pay-scale.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/786/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2024
undefined
13. It is established fact that the respondent
was appointed in view of the recruitment process
undertaken by the appellant-Corporation by
issuing the advertisement dated 17.04.2007. The
advertisement refers to filling up the posts of 3
departments viz. - (i) Light Department, (ii)
Health Department and (iii) (Vyayam Vidyalay)-
Physical Training Schools. So far as the first 2
departments are concerned, the posts of Deputy
City Engineer (Light) and Assistant Health
Officer were sought to be filled in and in case
of Physical Training School, the advertisement
refers the post to be filled in by part time
Physical Education Teachers.
14. Pursuant to the advertisement, the
Corporation received 122 applications for the
post of Physical Education Teacher. The committee
comprising of 5 members i.e. Deputy Municipal
Commissioner, Municipal Chief Auditor, Additional
Chief fire Officer, General manager (Parks and
Garden) and Principal, Ambhbhai Purani Physical
Training School met on 03.08.2007 and
candidates were given marks in view of their
experience and accordingly, 'waiting list' of
male and female candidates were prepared. In the
waiting list of male candidates, the name of the
respondent figures at Sr. No.13 and he had
secured 14.8 marks. The Committee has taken the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/786/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2024
undefined
decision that such selected candidates, whose
name figure in the waiting list, are to be
appointed on contractual basis on a monthly fixed
pay of Rs.2,500/-. Thus, so far as the selection
of the respondent is concerned, the same cannot
be in any manner held to be a back door Entry.
b) Issue of absorption/regularization :
15. We have held that the appointment of
respondent cannot be said to be backdoor or
illegal, however, the question which falls for
deliberation is that whether he can be absorbed
on the post of Physical Training Teacher and
conferred regular pay scale or not ?
16. The established fact is that the respondent
had categorically prayed in the writ petition
that he may be granted regular pay-scale from the
date of his appointment. The learned single judge
has directed for absorption on the post of
Physical Training Teacher. Thus, before issuing
such directions, it was necessary to establish
the existence of such post. It is no more res
integra that absorption of a part time teacher on
a particular post on which he/she is working
cannot be ordered unless there is a sanctioned
post. The writ petition is bereft of such
details. In the writ petition, the respondent has
not made any averment with regard to claim of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/786/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2024
undefined
particular pay-scale and also the writ petition
is blissfully silent on the aspect as to whether
the post, on which he was appointed, is a regular
post and there is an existing sanctioned post of
Physical Education Teacher in the set-up of the
Corporation and the same carries a particular
regular pay scale. The appellant - Corporation
have categorically contended that no such regular
post is in existence and work of Physical
Education Teacher is undertaken by appointing
persons on contractual basis since the
Corporation has not formed any rule creating post
of Physical Education Teacher. Such vital aspect
has been ignored by the learned Single Judge.
17. The learned Single Judge has primarily placed
reliance on the blank form, which is annexed as
Aannexure-C at Page No.16 and the
appendix/conditions annexed along with such form.
The condition No.19 specifically mentions that
after completion of 2 years of service, a
candidate will be continued in case his service
is found to be satisfactory and condition No.20
refers to some policy, in which it is mentioned
that after completion of 5 years of service, a
candidate will be appointed on regular pay-scale.
However, unless the respondent proves and
establishes that there is a sanctioned post of
Physical Education Teacher having a particular
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/786/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2024
undefined
pay scale, the aforesaid conditions annexed along
with the Form cannot routinely apply to him.
18. It appears that the Corporation, precisely
invited applications for filling up 3 posts, as
mentioned in the advertisement dated 17.04.2007
and such conditions were incorporated for the
posts, which were other than Physical Education
Teacher and common Forms having the appendix were
issued for these posts also. The respondent
cannot take benefit of 'blank form' at
(Annexure'C') which is issued commonly for all
the posts. Such intention can be gathered from
the noting of the meeting held by the Selection
Committee on 03.08.2007 while preparing the
waiting list. The Selection Committee has
categorically held that the Form is common in the
advertisement, and the appointment is to be given
on contract basis. The respondent cannot be
allowed to take benefit of the conditions
mentioned in the blank Form in wake of the
contract entered between the Corporation and him
as mentioned hereinabove. The service condition
of the respondent is governed by the terms of his
contact with the Corporation.
19. There cannot be any cavil on the legal
precedent envisaged in the judgements on which
reliance is placed by the respondent. However,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/786/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2024
undefined
the same will not come to the rescue of the
respondent. In case of Vinod Kumar & Ors (supra),
the Apex Court was dealing with the Accounts
Clerk who were serving on temporary basis for
more than 25 years, and were appointed for
specific scheme. The facts suggest that though
they were appointed on temporary period, they
were performing the duties of regular employees.
The striking distinguishing feature is that the
Accounts Clerk had also undergone promotion
process by Departmental Promotional Committee. In
present case, the issue of performing the duties
of regular Physical Training Teacher will not
arise, since there is no such post on the set-up
of the Corporation. In the case of Dhirendra
Chamoli (supra), on which reliance is placed by
the respondent, the Apex Court was dealing with
the issue of "equal pay for equal work". The
causal workers were doing work akin to Class-IV
employees, hence the Apex Court directed for
paying salary and allowances of Class-IV
employees. Similar issue has been considered by
the Apex Court in the case of Jagjit Singh and
Ors. (supra). Though, the respondent in the
prayers has claimed regular salary, he has failed
to establish his claim apropos any Class of
posts. There is no mention about particular
'regular' pay-scale. Reliance placed by the
respondent on the decision in case of Somesh
Thapliyal (supra) is also misconceived. The said
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/786/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2024
undefined
decision pertains to substantive appointment on
sanctioned posts.
20. We may refer to the decision of the Apex
Court in case of Ilmo Devi (supra), wherein the
Apex Court while dealing with the issue of
regularization of part-time employee has held
thus:
".5 Even the regularization policy to regularize the
services of the employees working on temporary status and/
or casual labourers is a policy decision and in judicial
review the Court cannot issue Mandamus and/or issue
mandatory directions to do so. In the case of R.S. Bhonde
and Ors. (supra), it is observed and held by this Court
that the status of permanency cannot be granted when there
is no post. It is further observed that mere continuance
every year of seasonal work during the period when work
was available does not constitute a permanent status
unless there exists a post and regularization is done.
8.6 In the case of Daya Lal & Ors. (supra) in paragraph
12, it is observed and held as under:-
"12. We may at the outset refer to the following
wellsettled principles relating to regularisation and
parity in pay, relevant in the context of these appeals:
(i) The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226
of the Constitution will not issue directions for
regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance,
unless the employees claiming regularisation had been
appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in
accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive
process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality
clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be
scrupulously followed and Courts should not issue a
direction for regularisation of services of an employee
which would be violative of the constitutional scheme.
While something that is irregular for want of compliance
with one of the elements in the process of selection which
does not go to the root of the process, can be
regularised, back door entries, appointments contrary to
the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible
candidates cannot be regularised.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/786/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2024
undefined
(ii) Mere continuation of service by a temporary or ad hoc
or daily-wage employee, under cover of some interim orders
of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be
absorbed into service, as such service would be "litigious
employment". Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service
for a long number of years, let alone service for one or
two years, will not entitle such employee to claim
regularisation, if he is not working against a sanctioned
post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing
any order of regularisation in the absence of a legal
right.
(iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularisation
with a cut-off date (that is a scheme providing that
persons who had put in a specified number of years of
service and continuing in employment as on the cut-off
date), it is not possible to others who were appointed
subsequent to the cut-off date, to claim or contend that
the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut-
off date or seek a direction for framing of fresh schemes
providing for successive cut-off dates.
(iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek
regularisation as they are not working against any
sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for
absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of
part-time temporary employees.
(v) Part-time temporary employees in government-run
institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular
employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay
for equal work. Nor can employees in private employment,
even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with
government employees. The right to claim a particular
salary against the State must arise under a contract or
under a statute. [See State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)
[(2006) 4 SCC 1], M. Raja v. CEERI Educational Society
[(2006) 12 SCC 636], S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand
[(2007) 8 SCC 279], Kurukshetra Central Coop. Bank Ltd. v.
Mehar Chand [(2007) 15 SCC 680] and Official Liquidator v.
Dayanand [(2008) 10 SCC 1.]
8.7 Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions part-time employees are not entitled
to seek regularization as they are not working against any
sanctioned post and there cannot be any permanent
continuance of part-time temporary employees as held.
Part-time temporary employees in a Government run
institution cannot claim parity in salary with regular
employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay
for equal work.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/786/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2024
undefined
8.8 Applying the law laid down by this court in the
aforesaid decisions, the directions issued by the High
Court in the impugned judgment and order, more
particularly, directions in paragraphs 22 and 23 are
unsustainable and beyond the power of the judicial review
of the High Court in exercise of the power under Article
226 of the Constitution. Even otherwise, it is required to
be noted that in the present case, the Union of
India/Department subsequently came out with a
regularization policy dated 30.06.2014, which is
absolutely in consonance with the law laid down by this
Court in the case of Umadevi (supra), which does not apply
to the part-time workers who do not work on the sanctioned
post. As per the settled preposition of law, the
regularization can be only as per the regularization
policy declared by the State/Government and nobody can
claim the regularization as a matter of right dehors the
regularization policy. Therefore, in absence of any
sanctioned post and considering the fact that the
respondents were serving as a contingent paid part-time
Safai Karamcharies, even otherwise, they were not entitled
for the benefit of regularization under the regularization
policy dated 30.06.2014."
21. Thus, the Apex Court, after survey of various
judgements has summarised the law relating to
the regularisation of part-time employees. It is
held that the part-time employees are not
entitled to seek regularization as they are not
working against any sanctioned post and there
cannot be any permanent continuance of part-time
temporary employees as held. In the instant case,
the respondent has failed to establish that a
sanctioned post of Physical Training Teacher is
in existence in the setup of the Corporation, and
the work or duties performed by the respondent is
akin to the such post. The cause for filing the
writ petition is the issuance of advertisement by
the Corporation inviting the applications again
for filling up the post of Physical Education
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/786/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2024
undefined
Teacher on contractual basis. It appears that in
fear of losing his job, the respondent filed the
writ petition claiming the regular pay-scale.
CONCLUSION
22. Thus, in absence of any material to show that
whether the post of Physical Education Teacher is
created under the Rules and Regulations of the
Corporation and such post of Physical Education
Teacher carries particular pay-scale, the
respondent cannot claim the regular pay-scale.
The learned Single Judge fell in error in
allowing the writ petition and issuing the
direction to the Corporation to absorb him on a
post and to confer him the regular pay-scale,
without examining the fact that a particular pay-
scale is attached to the post of Physical
Education Teacher and post of Physical Education
Teacher is sanctioned post and is created under
the Rules and Regulations by the Corporation. The
learned Single Judge has ordered absorption on
the post of Physical Teacher which does not exist
in the regular setup. Absorption can only be done
on a sanctioned setup post.
23. There is another consequence of directions
issued by the learned Single Judge for
absorption. The recruitment of the Corporation is
confined to appointing the part-time Physical
Education Teacher on contractual basis in "Vyayam
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/786/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2024
undefined
Vidyalay", whose services are required at various
places like Gyms and Swimming Pools organized/run
by the Corporation. The Corporation had prepared
waiting list of 30 candidates in male category
and 18 in female category for appointing them in
"Vyayam Vidyalay". Any direction of absorption in
the case of the respondent will also trigger
claim of absorption in regular pay scale by all
other candidates also. This will be a detrimental
offshoot to the interest of the Corporation. The
Corporation being an employer, is conferred with
the power and authority to engage employees on
either contractual or ad hoc or on part-time
basis for work or for carrying out the duties,
which are required by it to be performed in a
particular department for a particular purpose.
An employee, as a matter of right, cannot claim
regularization or regular pay-scale on such post
without establishing that such post, on which
claim is asserted for regular pay-scale, is in
fact, existing in the set-up of the Corporation.
In absence of such material, the learned Single
Judge has absolutely stumbled in issuing the
direction directing the Corporation to confer the
regular pay-scale to the respondent.
24. Thus, on the bed-rock of the foregoing
analysis of facts and law, the present Letters
Patent Appeal succeeds and is allowed. The
impugned judgement and order passed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/786/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2024
undefined
learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside.
However, as per the statement made before us by
the appellant-Corporation and as incorporated in
the affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation,
the appellant-corporation shall give preference
to the respondent and shall be granted age
relaxation, if in case he applies for undertaking
the fresh recruitment process. It is also
clarified that the present decision may not be
treated detrimental to his selection or further
continuation as a part-timer, since he is already
performing his duties since 2007 without any
thing adverse reported against him. We also
express that in case the work of Physical
Training Teacher is of perennial nature, the
Corporation may create a sanctioned regular post,
which can be filled up by undertaking regular
recruitment process. Being a model employer, it
is expected from the Corporation to create a
sanctioned post carrying perennial duties, and
should not exploit the persons employed on daily
wages, contractual or ad hoc. If such employees
are continued on long term basis and their
contract is continued beyond the initial period,
the Court can presumes that there is regular need
for their services, hence there is need to create
regular post. We hope that the Corporation will
act accordingly.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/786/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2024
undefined
25. The interim relief, if any shall stand
vacated. The connected civil application for stay
also stands disposed of.
ORDER IN MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3274 OF 2017
In view of the aforesaid order, the captioned
Misc. Civil Application for contempt is ordered
to be detagged. Registry shall list the same
before the Bench assigned such roster.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI,J)
NVMEWADA/1
