Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Geetanjali Bhati vs The Union Of India on 19 September, 2024
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:38145-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13603/2024
Mohd. Imran S/o Abdul Hakim, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
Mohalla Roshan Gunj, Sayed Colony, Ward No. 2, District Sikar,
Rajasthan. (At Present Working As Staff Nurse Second, Aiims
Jodhpur).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary To The Ministry Of
Health And Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, Maulana Azad Road,
(Pmssy Division) New Delhi.
2. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims), Basni-Ii,
Jodhpur (Rajasthan) Through Its Director.
3. The Deputy Director (Administration), All India Institute
Of Medical Sciences (Aiims), Basni-Ii, Jodhpur
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5234/2024
1. Baijnath Kumhar S/o Shri Balu Ramji, Aged About 48
Years, Resident Of Village Post Dewal Tehsil Malpura
District Tonk Rajasthan.
2. Jasbinder S/o Shri Kripal Singh, Aged About 44 Years,
Village Karangpura, Post Office Garda, Tehsil Kishanganj,
District Baran, Rajasthan.
3. Jeetendra S/o Shri Bharat Prakash, Aged About 46 Years,
Near Gwalechwar Mahadev Mandir, Manerna Colony,
Jodhpur.
4. Prem Katewa S/o Shri Dharu Ram, Aged About 48 Years,
Village Gopalpura, Post Hemirikala, District Jhunjhunu,
Tehsil - Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
5. Shalini D/o Shri Raghubhir Singh, Aged About 48 Years,
1/1/22, Kudi Section-I, Kudi Bhagtasani Housing Board,
Jodhpur.
6. Shiny Peter D/o Shri Peter A, Aged About 44 Years, 1-
Gha-B, Madhuban Housing Board, Near Ambika Hospital,
Basni, Jodhpur.
7. Usha Kumari D/o Shri Sheopal Singh, Aged About 46
Years, Wzh, 26 Iind Floor, Sant Nagar Extension, Tilak
Nagar, Gali-2, Near Montu Shah Cable Network, New
Delhi.
8. Anita Yadav D/o Shri Chhaju Ram Yadav, Aged About 43
Years, Plot No. 45, Indira Vihar, Sector-7, New House
Road, Jodhpur.
9. Sincy Thomas D/o Shri P.p. Thomas, Aged About 43
Years, Pazoor Vadakekara House, Vadavathoor, Po.
District Koyyayam-Kerala.
(Downloaded on 20/09/2024 at 10:24:11 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:38145-DB] (2 of 22) [CW-13603/2024]
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The Union Of India, Through The Secretary To The
Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan,
Maulana Azad Road, (Pmssy Division) New Delhi.
2. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims), Basni -Ii,
Jodhpur (Rajasthan) Through Its Director.
3. The Deputy Director (Administration), All India Institute
Of Medical Sciences (Aiims), Basni -Ii, Jodhpur
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5270/2024
Roney Thomas D/o Shri K.t. Thomas, Aged About 38 Years,
House No. 196, Lal Sagar, Chankya Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary To The Ministry Of
Health And Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, Maulana
Azad Road, (Pmssy Division) New Delhi.
2. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims), Basni-Ii,
Jodhpur (Rajasthan) Through Its Director.
3. The Deputy Director (Administration), All India Institute
Of Medical Sciences (Aiims), Basni-Ii, Jodhpur
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5437/2024
1. Geetanjali Bhati D/o Shambhu Singh Bhati, Aged About
40 Years, Resident Of Tilak Marg, Boharwadi, Salumber,
District Udaipur (Rajasthan)
2. Hariom Sharma S/o Gajanand Sharma, Aged About 41
Years, Resident Of Murti Mohalla, Jhalra Kua Ke Pass,
Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.
3. Mangal Pandey S/o Shri Bhagwati Prasad Pandey, Aged
About 41 Years, Resident Of Holi Chowk, Bhrampuri,
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Praveen Mehta S/o Shri Tulsi Ram Mehta, Aged About 42
Years, Resident Of Azad Chowk Goal, Tehsil Aspur, District
Gungarpur, Rajasthan.
5. Sukhpal Sigh Shekhawat S/o Shisu Singh, Aged About 38
Years, Resident Of Vil Post Kariri, Via Khej Roli, Tehsil
Shahapura, District Jaipur Rajasthan
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The Union Of India, Through The Secretary To The
Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan,
Maulana Azad Road, (Pmssy Division) New Delhi.
(Downloaded on 20/09/2024 at 10:24:11 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:38145-DB] (3 of 22) [CW-13603/2024]
2. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims), Basni-Ii,
Jodhpur (Rajasthan), Through Its Director.
3. The Deputy Director (Administration), All India Institute
Of Medical Sciences (Aiims), Basni-Ii, Jodhpur
(Rajasthan)
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5647/2024
1. Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Srawan Kumar Sharma,
Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Village/post Talab,
Teshil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Rajasthan).
2. Manju Choudhary D/o Shri Daya Ram Kulhara, Aged
About 42 Years, Resident Of Village Ghadhala Kala, V/p
Ghadhala Kala, Tehsil Udaipur Vati, District Jhunjhunu
(Rajasthan).
3. Mukesh Rathor S/o Shri Ram Swaroop Rathor, Aged About
41 Years, Dandotiya Colony, Tel Factory, Baran, Rajasthan
325205
4. Prem Prakash S/o Shri Bhaboot Ram, Aged About 38
Years, V/p Ramrawas Kalan, Vaya Pipar Road, District
Jodhpur.
5. Ravi Prakash Tailor S/o Shri Ratan Lal Tailor, Aged About
41 Years, V/p Gagrana, Tehsil Merta City, District Nagaur
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The Union Of India, Through The Secretary To The
Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan,
Maulana Azad, (Pmssy Division) New Delhi.
2. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims), Basni-Ii,
Jodhpur (Rajasthan) Through Its Director.
3. The Deputy Director (Administration), All India Institute
Of Medical Sciences (Aiims) Basni-Ii, Jodhpur
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5753/2024
Om Prakash Bishnoi S/o Shri Asu Ram Bishnoi, Aged About 38
Years, Resident Of V/p Karwada, Tehsil Raniwara, District Jalore,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union Of India, Through The Secretary To The
Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan,
Maulana Azad Road, (Pmssy Division) New Delhi.
2. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims), Basni-Ii,
Jodhpur (Rajasthan) Through Its Director.
3. The Deputy Director (Administration), All India Institute
(Downloaded on 20/09/2024 at 10:24:11 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:38145-DB] (4 of 22) [CW-13603/2024]
Of Medical Sciences 9Aiims), Basni-Ii, Jodhpur
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6984/2024
1. Nayan Tara D/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 39 Years,
Resident Of Village Ranasar, Via Doomra, Tehsil
Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
2. Ranjeet Gochar S/o Jagdish Gochar, Aged About 36 Years,
Resident Of Village And Post Radi, Tehsil K. Patan, District
Bundi (Rajasthan)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The Union Of India, Through The Secretary To The
Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan,
Maulana Azad Road, 9Pmssy Division) New Delhi.
2. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims), Basni-Ii,
Jodhpur (Rajasthan) Through Its Director.
3. The Deputy Director (Administration), All India Institute
Of Medical Sciences (Aiims), Basni-Ii, Jodhpur
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12172/2024
1. Anil Kumar Mourya S/o Sh. Hari Ram Mourya, Aged About
37 Years, Resident Of Hingonia, Jobner, Tehsil Renwal,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Anoop Kumar Mahawer S/o Shri Ram Kumar Mahawer,
Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of P.no. 359, Tirupati
Balaji Nagar, Opp. Airport Sanganer Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Ashok Kumar Saini S/o Shri Mangi Lal Saini, Aged About
37 Years, Resident Of Village Gudha Sali, Tehsil Nawa
City, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
4. Devkiran Shrotiya S/o Shri Rameshwar Shrotiya, Aged
About 35 Years, Resident Of V/p Shakkargarh, Tehsil
Jahazpur, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
5. Divya Vyas D/o Shri Chandra Sekhar Vyas, Aged About 36
Years, Resident Of Dholi-Wadi, Dheero Ka Vas, Goapura,
Swamivivekanand Marg, Sojat City, District Pali,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary To The Ministry Of
Health And Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, Maulana Azad Road,
(Pmssy Division) New Delhi.
2. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims), Basni-Ii,
Jodhpur (Rajasthan) Through Its Director.
3. The Deputy Director (Administration), All India Institute
(Downloaded on 20/09/2024 at 10:24:11 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:38145-DB] (5 of 22) [CW-13603/2024]
Of Medical Sciences (Aiims), Basni-Ii, Jodhpur
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6966/2024
1. Devendra Kumar S/o Shri Shishu Pal Singh, Aged About
27 Years, Resident Of House No. 2/232, Housing Board
Colony,bari Road, Dholpur.
2. Himmat Singh Rajpurohit S/o Shri Bagad Singh, Aged
About 28 Years, Resident Of V/p Mandla, Tehsil Sojat
City, District Pali.
3. Joseph Peter S/o Shri Pm Peter, Aged About 27 Years,
Resident Of Puthenpuratil House, Moramon Po.o.
Pathanamthitta, District Kerala State.
4. Mahendra Kumar S/o Shri Prakash Ram, Aged About 28
Years, Resident Of V/p Asawari Via-Gotan, District
Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The Union Of India, Through The Secretary To The
Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan,
Maulana Azad Road, (Pmssy Division) New Delhi.
2. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims), Basni-Ii,
Jodhpur (Rajasthan) Through Its Director.
3. The Deputy Director (Administration), All India Institute
Of Medical Sciences (Aiims), Basni-Ii, Jodhpur
(Rajasthan)
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5238/2024
1. Manivannan R S/o Shri P Ramamoorthy, Aged About 37
Years, Resident Of 89/1 Thottakadj House, R. Pattanam
Post Rasipuram, Taluk Namakkal, District Tamilnadu.
2. Sumit Sundesha S/o Shri Trivendra Kumar, Aged About
38 Years, Resident Of Govt. Hospital Qt. Opp. Jujani Bus
Stand, Bhinmal, District Jalore.
3. Sunita Kumari D/o Shri Ram Lal Singh, Aged About 37
Years, Resident Of Village Kangansar, Dist. Sikar.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The Union Of India, Through The Secretary To The
Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan,
Maulana Azad Road, (Pmssy Division) New Delhi.
2. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims), Basni -Ii,
Jodhpur (Rajasthan) Through Its Director.
(Downloaded on 20/09/2024 at 10:24:12 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:38145-DB] (6 of 22) [CW-13603/2024]
3. The Deputy Director (Administration), All India Institute
Of Medical Sciences (Aiims), Basni -Ii, Jodhpur
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5612/2024
1. Himanshu Narayan Lekhera S/o Shri Nandkishor
Lekhera, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of 260,
Parswanath Nagar, Air Port Road, Post Office Sanganer,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Ajaypal Singh Kumpawat S/o Shri Mangal Singh
Kumpawat, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Village-
Banmiya, Post-Mokhmpura, Tehsil-Bali, District Pali,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The Union Of India, Through The Secretary To The
Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan,
Maulana Azad Road, (Pmssy Division) New Delhi.
2. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims), Basni-Ii,
Jodhpur (Rajasthan) Through Its Director.
3. The Deputy Director (Administration), All India Institute
Of Medical Sciences (Aiims), Basni, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Prateek Surana &
Mr. Aniket Tater
Dr. Nikhil Dungawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, Dy.S.G.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Judgment
Reserved on 11/09/2024
Pronounced on 19/09/2024
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. Since the instant writ petitions arise out of the order dated
12.03.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in
short, 'the Tribunal'), Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original
[2024:RJ-JD:38145-DB] (7 of 22) [CW-13603/2024]
Applications No.445/2016 & other connected matters, therefore,
the writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided
by this common judgment.
1.1. For the sake of brevity, the facts, as pleaded in one of the
petitions, being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5234/2024 and the
prayer clauses thereof, are taken for the purpose of present
analogous adjudication.
1.2 The prayer clauses reads as under:-
"i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the judgment
and order dated 12th March 2024 (annex-1) passed by the
learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur while
rejecting the Original Application No.445/2016, may kindly
be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.
ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the original
application filed by the petitioners before the learned
Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur, may kindly be
allowed and the respondents be directed to confer the
regular pay scale i.e. 9300-34800 with the Grade Pay of
Rs.4600/- after regularizing their services on the post of
Staff Nurse Grade-II, with all consequential benefits.
iii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
respondents be directed to treat the petitioners as regular
after completing 2 years of service on the post of Staff
Nurse Gr.II and confer them the benefits of permanent
servant of AIIMS, Jodhpur with all consequential benefits.
iv) Without prejudice to above, by an appropriate order or
direction, the contractual appointment of the petitioners be
declared sham and it may be declared that the
appointments of the petitioners made pursuant to the
advertisement dated 15.07.2013 as regular appointments
and therefore, the petitioners be conferred the benefit of
regular pay scale from the date they have been appointed
with AIIMS Jodhpur with all consequential benefits including
the arrears of salary.
[2024:RJ-JD:38145-DB] (8 of 22) [CW-13603/2024]
v) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
respondents be restrained to terminate the services of the
petitioners, and if during the pendency of the writ petition,
the services of the petitioners are terminated, the orders of
termination, may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed
and set aside with all consequential benefits.
vi) Any other appropriate order or direction which this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of
the petitioners.
Vii) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the
petitioners."
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by
Mr.Manoj Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Prateek
Surana and Dr.Nikhil Dungawat, appearing on behalf of the
petitioners, are that the respondent-All India Institute of Medical
Sciences (AIIMS), Jodhpur issued an advertisement on
15.07.2013 inviting applications from eligible candidates for
recruitment on various posts, including Staff Nurse Grade-II for
Nursing Colleges and Hospital Services, on contract basis initially
for a period of 11 months, at AIIMS, Jodhpur.
2.1. The petitioner having possessed the requisite educational
qualification, applied in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement;
after going through the written examination as well as the
interview process, the petitioner was appointed on the post of
Staff Nurse Grade II (in short, 'post in question'), vide
appointment order dated 15.01.2014, by the respondents. Such
appointment of the petitioner was extended from time to time.
[2024:RJ-JD:38145-DB] (9 of 22) [CW-13603/2024]
2.2. The petitioner filed a representation seeking regularization
on the post in question and for grant of regular pay scale,
pertaining thereto, with all consequential benefits, but no heed
was paid by the respondent-department. Thereafter, while
apprehending the termination of his services, the petitioner filed
an Original Application bearing O.A. No. 445/2016 before the
learned Tribunal; during pendency of the said O.A., the petitioner
filed a Misc. Application bearing No.44/2022, wherein the learned
Tribunal vide order dated 01.04.2022 passed an interim order,
while directing the respondents not to terminate the petitioner's
service.
2.3 Thereafter, the petitioner filed another Original Application
bearing O.A. No.159/2020 before the learned Tribunal, with a
prayer for issuance of a direction to the respondents that they
shall not make recruitment pursuant to the advertisement issued
on 05.08.2020 on the post of Nursing Officer/Nurse Grade II
against which the petitioner is presently working and have sought
their regularization by filing aforesaid original application; the
same was granted by the learned Tribunal vide order dated
13.12.2023.
2.4 Subsequently, the learned Tribunal vide the impugned order
dated 12.03.2024, while deciding the O.A. No.445/2016 and other
connected matters, rejected the said original application of the
petitioner. Thus, being aggrieved of the impugned order dated
12.03.2024, the present writ petitions have been preferred,
claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.
[2024:RJ-JD:38145-DB] (10 of 22) [CW-13603/2024]
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners were appointed against the sanctioned posts, which is
clear from the guidelines issued by the respondents themselves,
while undertaking the process of selection of the petitioners, as
per the communication dated 06.08.2013. It was further
submitted that the said communication reveals that the
appointment of the petitioners though made on the post in
question on contractual basis, but the same was against the
regular and sanctioned posts.
3.1. It was also submitted that a total of 96 Staff Nurse Grade-II
were working in the respondent-AIIMS at the relevant point of
time and 1230 posts were lying vacant, and therefore, there was
no reason available to the respondents, not to accede to the
request of the petitioners for regularization of their services on the
post in question. It was further submitted that the petitioners
have been working in the respondent-AIIMS for last more than 10
years, but the respondents are not regularizing the petitioners'
services on the post in question, with all consequential benefits,
which is a clear violation of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution
of India.
3.2. It was also submitted that the petitioners were appointed on
the post in question, after undergoing the due selection process
i.e. written examination and interview, and that, the petitioners
have also been awarded the experience certificate; as per the
petitioner, the level of difficulty of the selection process undergone
by the petitioners was quite high, in comparison to the other
recruitment process for the post in question, and therefore, the
[2024:RJ-JD:38145-DB] (11 of 22) [CW-13603/2024]
petitioners, cannot in any manner, be termed as a back door
entry, nor can they be treated as persons inducted through
placement agency, more particularly, when the selection on the
post in question was made from open market.
3.3. It was further submitted that no rules pertaining to the
recruitment on the post in question were framed by the
respondents till the year 2015. It was also submitted that the
petitioners, by now, have already crossed the age criteria, thereby
making them ineligible for any fresh recruitment. In support of
such submission, reliance was placed upon the judgment rendered
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ushaben Joshi Vs.
Union of India & Ors (SLP (Civil) No. 6427 of 2019, decided
on 02.08.2024).
3.4. It was also submitted that yet another recruitment process
pertaining to the post (permanent in nature) of Nurse Grade-II
was initiated by the respondents in the year 2016 and the Rules
therefor, were framed by the respondents only in the year 2017. It
was further submitted that the recruitment process of 2016 was
also identical to the process underwent by the petitioners for the
post in question in the year 2013; the appointment of the
candidates participated in the process of 2016 was permanent in
nature, but the similarly situated persons i.e. petitioners, despite
successfully undergoing the identical selection process, were
granted contractual appointment, which is nothing but an act of
arbitrariness and discrimination on the part of the respondents. In
support of such submission, reliance was placed upon the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
[2024:RJ-JD:38145-DB] (12 of 22) [CW-13603/2024]
Neelima Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors (Civil Appeal No.
4840 of 2021, decided on 17.08.2021)
3.5. It was further submitted that similar situated persons who
have been working as Staff Nursing Grade-II at AIIMS, New Delhi,
since 2003-2004, have already been ordered to be regularized in
service on the said post, pursuant to a Resolution dated
28.02.2014, which was passed for regularization of Group B and
Group C employees, working on ad hoc basis, at AIIMS, New
Delhi, which can be further fortified from the Memorandum dated
07.05.2014 issued under the signatures of the Director and
Member of Secretary of AIIMS, New Delhi.
3.6. It was also submitted that the 2nd Meeting of the Governing
Body of the respondent-AIIMS, Jodhpur was held on 11.05.2017,
to discuss the proposal for regularization in question, in Agenda
Item No.11. After due discussion, Minutes of the said Meeting
were drawn, and thereby, the Chairman of the respondent-AIIMS
issued a direction for examining the issue sympathetically and
thereafter, forward the proposal, if any, to the Ministry for further
examination.
3.7. In support of such submissions, reliance was also placed
upon the following judgments:-
(a) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Brajrannagar Coal Mines
Workers' Union (Civil Appeal Nos. 4092-4093/2024, decided on
12.03.2024 by) by the Hon'ble Apex Court;
(b) Sheo Narain Nagar & Ors Vs. State of U.P. & Ors AIR 2018
SC 233;
[2024:RJ-JD:38145-DB] (13 of 22) [CW-13603/2024]
(c) Vinod Kumar & Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (SLP (C)
Nos. 22241-42 of 2016, decided on 30.01.2024) by the Hon'ble
Apex Court.
(d) Vinod Kumar Sharma & Ors Vs. Union of India & Anr. (W.P.
(C) 17291/2022, decided on 29.07.2024) by the Division Bench of
the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned Deputy
Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondents, while
opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the
petitioners, submitted that the advertisement dated 15.07.2013
makes it clear that the same was issued for certain posts on
contractual basis for a certain period only, and no regular process
of selection was sought to be followed thereby, and the orders of
engagement dated 15.01.2014 were issued, and therefore, such
contractual engagement of the petitioners cannot be termed as
"substantive appointments".
4.1. It was further submitted that the petitioners completed 2
years of contractual services, by the time of filing the O.A. before
learned Tribunal and that, on count of the same so also in view of
the clear stipulation (contractual engagement) in the aforesaid
advertisement, the petitioners cannot seek regularization of their
services on the post in question. It was also submitted that the
petitioners are getting Rs.34,000/- as fixed monthly pay, which is
more than minimum of the pay prescribed under the relevant pay
band, as applicable, and therefore, the grievance of the petitioners
pertaining to the regularization in question is baseless.
[2024:RJ-JD:38145-DB] (14 of 22) [CW-13603/2024]
4.2. It was further submitted that the petitioners' engagement
was made for a certain period and such appointees cannot take
shelter of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India, so as to
seek regularization in service with all consequential benefits. In
support of such submission, reliance was placed upon the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi & Ors
(2006) 4 SCC 1.
4.3. It was also submitted that the appointments offered to the
petitioners were contractual in nature and were offered to them on
certain terms and conditions, which they accepted with open eyes.
It was further submitted that there is a huge difference between a
regular selection process and the one initiated and concluded qua
the petitioners for the post in question, more particularly, when
the regular selection process is to be concluded after wide
publicity thereof throughout the country, whereas, the contractual
engagement of the petitioners was made, owing to an immediate
need, without the process as required for regular selection.
4.4. It was also submitted that the learned Tribunal, after duly
considering each and every aspect of the case, has passed the
impugned order, which is justified in law.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.
6. This Court observes that the respondent-AIIMS issued the
advertisement on 15.07.2013 for various posts including the post
in question, for appointment on contractual basis initially for a
period of 11 months; the petitioners applied for the same, and
[2024:RJ-JD:38145-DB] (15 of 22) [CW-13603/2024]
after going through the selection process viz. written examination
as well as the interview, the petitioners were appointed on the
post in question on 15.01.2014. Thereafter, the petitioners'
appointment was extended from time to time, but under an
apprehension of termination of such services, the petitioners
raised an objection vide the aforementioned O.A. before the
learned Tribunal. During pendency of the O.A., the petitioners
have filed a misc. application. wherein the learned Tribunal vide
order dated 01.04.2022 passed an interim order.
6.1. Subsequently, the learned Tribunal vide the impugned order
dated 12.03.2024 decide the O.A. No.445/2016 and other
connected applications, whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed
the said original applications of the petitioners, which is subject
matter of challenge in the instant writ petitions.
7. This Court further observes that the respondents issued the
advertisement in the year 2013 and the petitioners were
appointed, after going through the written examination, followed
by the interview, and the petitioners' appointment on the post in
question was made initially for a period of 11 months, and
thereafter, it was extended from time to time, and till today they
are working on the said post, for last more than 10 years.
8. This Court also observes that during the pendency of the
O.A. 445/2016 before the learned Tribunal, an interim order was
passed on 01.04.2022 in Misc. Application No. 44/2022 so as to
protect the services of the petitioners from termination.
Relevant portion of the said order dated 01.04.2022 is
reproduced as hereunder:-
[2024:RJ-JD:38145-DB] (16 of 22) [CW-13603/2024]
"Learned counsel for the applicant very fairly states
that the respondents are extending the contract by every
year by renewing the services of the applicant. He also
states that the applicant is in apprehension that if the
respondent-department does not renew the contract of his
services may be terminated now. In this eventuality,
learned counsel for the applicant prays that the respondents
be restrained from terminating the services of the applicant
subject to the outcome of the present O.A. as the applicant
has been rendering the services since 2014 and the O.A. is
pending before this Tribunal for adjudication. The balance of
convenience lies in favour of the applicant as well as the
natural justice demands that the respondents be restrained
from terminating his services subject to the outcome of this
O.A.
In view of the above, the M.A. No.32/2022 is allowed
and the respondents are directed not to terminate the
services of the applicant till the next date of hearing."
9. This Court further observes that in the instant writ petitions,
challenging the impugned order of the learned Tribunal, this
Hon'ble Court passed an interim order dated 16.04.2024, relevant
portion whereof of reproduced as hereunder:-
"8. Meanwhile, the respondents shall stand restrained from
dispensing with the services of the petitioners. The
respondents shall be at liberty to move appropriate
application for vacation of the interim order, if occasion so
arises or to seek leave to disengage any of the petitioner(s),
if he/she indulges in any act of unbecoming of a
Government servant."
10. This Court also observes that in an identical situation, the
AIIMS, New Delhi in its 150th Meeting of the Governing Body held
on 28.02.2014, comprising Chairman, Members, Member
Secretary and Special Invitees, considered the proposal for
[2024:RJ-JD:38145-DB] (17 of 22) [CW-13603/2024]
regularization of Group "B" & "C" employees working on ad hoc
basis, and as per the Minutes of the said Meeting, a total of 193
employees whose working tenure was ranging from 10 to 15 years
were regularized in service; the present petitioners, working in the
respondent-AIIMS, Jodhpur are similarly situated to the said
employees regularized in service by AIIMS, New Delhi. The said
proposal was also fortified by the Memorandum of the Director
and the Member Secretary issued on 07.05.2014. This Court also
observes that subsequently, the said employees of AIIMS, New
Delhi were regularized in service and consequently, are getting
regular pay scale of the post of Nurse Grade-II on 30.06.2014.
The relevant portion of the said Meeting is reproduced as
hereunder:-
"MINUTES OF THE 150 MEETING OF THE GOVERNING
BODY HELD ON FRIDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY, 2014
AT 3:00 P.M. IN THE COMMITTEE ROOM, 3RD FLOOR,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, NIRMAN
BHAWAN,
NEW DELHI
To consider the proposal for Regularization of Group
"B" & "C" employees working on ad-hoc basis at the
AIIMS, New Delhi.
____________________________________
Dy. Director (Admn.) explained that the proposal for
regularization of ad-hoc employees emanated from the
pressing demand of the various sections of employees of
the Institute who had been working on ad hoc basis over a
considerable period of time and this was a very long
pending issue. It was also brought to the notice of G.B.
that this proposal had been earlier brought before the
S.F.C. as well as G.B. The G.B. had decided that such
[2024:RJ-JD:38145-DB] (18 of 22) [CW-13603/2024]
employees should be given relaxation in age but should be
asked to go through the prescribed selection process
alongwith other open candidates for respective posts. The
Institute had acted on the advise of G.B. but the said
employees had gone to C.A.T. and obtained a stay on the
proceedings leading to disruption of the selection process.
This resulted in a stalemate. Therefore, the Instititute
brought this proposal of regularization of ad-hoc employees
for reconsideration of G.B.
The proposal was strongly and vociferously supported
by Smt. Sushma Swaraj, Shri Motilal Vora and other
members. Smt. Sushma Swaraj informed that these
employees had been working in the Institute for a long
period of time and they had been shouldering the
responsibilities of their respective posts as those of regular
employees of the Institute. Many of these employees had
been in the age group of 40-45 years and also many of
them were the sole bread earners of their family. She
added that dispensing with their services at this advance
stage of their life would be inhuman. Shri Motilal Vora said
that these ad-hoc employees had also actively contributed
to the progress and development of the Institute and
strongly advocated for regularization of their services.
Shri Sundeep Nayak informed that there was a
litigation in the Hon'ble CAT for regularization of these ad-
hoc employees. He also informed that a case of
regularization of the ad-hoc employees working in PGIMER,
Chandigarh was referred to the DoPT which was turned
down. Smt. Sushma Swaraj responded by saying that once
the services of these ad-hoc employees were regularized,
the litigation pending before CAT would automatically stand
resolved.
The Chairman wanted to know the number of ad-hoc
employees to be regularized and the period of services
rendered by them in the Institute. It was clarified that
there were 193 such employees working on ad-hoc basis
and they had rendered the services in the Institute ranging
from 10 years to 15 years. The list of such employees was
attached as Annexure-I of the agenda item. The Chairman
[2024:RJ-JD:38145-DB] (19 of 22) [CW-13603/2024]
said that if this was the situation, then many of such
employees would be on the verge of retirement within next
decade.
After detailed deliberations, the Governing Body
unanimously approved the regularization of the services of
193 employees working on ad-hoc basis in Group "B" and
"C" categories of posts at the AIIMS, New Delhi (the list of
such employees is attached as Annexure-I of the agenda
item."
The relevant portion of the letter dated 07.05.2014 is
reproduced as hereunder:-
"MEMORANDUM
... . ... . ....
Minutes of the Governing Body meeting held on 28
February, 2014 at 03:00 PM in the Committee Room, 3 rd
Floor, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi duly approved by the President were circulated
to all the Members of the Governing Body vide No.2-
1/2014-Genl. dated 28.03.2014 inviting observations, if
any, within two weeks from the date of issue of the
memo.
Final Minutes as approved by the Chairman after
incorporating an observation received from Shri Motilal
Vora, Hon'ble MP (RS), are being circulated for kind
perusal and record."
11. This Court further observes that the petitioners' case for
regularization of their services on the post in question, was also
placed before the Governing Body in the Second Meeting of AIIMS,
Jodhpur on 11.05.2017, in the presence of the Chairman,
Members and Member Secretary, whereby as per Agenda Item
No.11, the regularization of the petitioners on the post in question
fell for consideration and after discussion, the Chairman directed
[2024:RJ-JD:38145-DB] (20 of 22) [CW-13603/2024]
that respondent-AIIMS may also examine the issue
sympathetically and thereafter, forward the proposal, if any, to the
Ministry for further examination.
Relevant portion of the said Meeting is reproduced
hereunder:-
"Minutes of 2nd Meeting of the Governing Body of All
India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur held on
11th May, 2017 in HFM Conference Hall, Ministry of
Health & Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi
Agenda Item No.11:
Discussion on service matters of contractual Staff
Nurse
Governing Body was informed that a letter from Dr. Manoj
Rajoria, Member of the Institute Body and Hon'ble Member
of Parliament has been received regarding regularization
and salary enhancement of contractual Staff Nurse Grade -
I.
Committee was further informed that one Assistant Nursing
Superintendent (ANS), six Staff Nurse Grade - I and eighty
six Staff Nurse Grade - II are working in AIIMS Jodhpur on
contract basis since 2014. They have filed the case in
Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) for
regularization of their services. Reply has already been
filed in Hon'ble Court.
Governing Body, after discussion, observed that a
committee for revising the Recruitment Rules for Nursing
Cadre is already in place. Therefore, the Governing Body
felt that the matter may also be considered while
revising/framing the Recruitment Rules.
Further, Chairman directed that the AIIMS, Jodhpur may
also examine the issue sympathetically and forward the
proposal, if any, to the Ministry for further examination."
[2024:RJ-JD:38145-DB] (21 of 22) [CW-13603/2024]
12. This Court also observes that the petitioners were working
without any protection in the form of interim order(s) for about 9
years on the post in question in the respondent department, and
thereafter, they were protected vide the interim orders in various
stages of litigation, thus, they are working on the post in question
for last more than 10 years. This Court further observes that the
respondent issued the advertisement in the year 2013 and the
petitioners cleared the written examination, so also the next stage
i.e. the interview, thus, their selection on the post in question was
made on the basis of their merit, which clearly shows that the
petitioners were appointed through open market competition, and
were not inducted in service through back door entry.
13. After considering the factual matrix of the present case,
aforementioned Agenda Item No.11, Resolution of the AIIMS, New
Delhi and the precedent law pertaining to regularization, the
present writ petitions are partly allowed, while quashing and
setting aside the impugned order dated 12.03.2024 passed by the
learned Tribunal.
13.1. The respondents are to pass a fresh speaking order in the
matter of regularization of the petitioners' service on the post in
question, while keeping into due consideration the aforementioned
Resolution of AIIMS, New Delhi, Agenda Item No.11 of Second
Meeting of Governing Body of AIIMS Jodhpur dated 11.05.2017
and the precedent law pertaining to regularization of employees,
within period of 3 months from today.
13.2. Meanwhile and until passing of such fresh speaking order,
the respondents are restrained from terminating the services of
[2024:RJ-JD:38145-DB] (22 of 22) [CW-13603/2024]
the petitioners from the post in question. However, on passing of
such fresh speaking order by the respondents, in case the
petitioner still feel aggrieved, they would be at liberty to take
appropriate legal recourse. All pending applications stand disposed
of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
