Smt. V. Geeta Rani, vs The Managing Dir., Ap Toddy Ap ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1424 Tel

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                           AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                        WRIT APPEAL No.979 of 2009

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)

        The present writ appeal is arising out of an order, dated

21.11.2008 passed in W.P.No.34078 of 1998 by the learned Single

Judge dismissing the writ petition.


        The facts of the case reveal that the appellant, Smt. V.Geeta

Rani was appointed as Record Assistant and later as Junior

Assistant in the service of the Andhra Pradesh Toddy Tappers'

Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited, which was constituted

vide    G.O.Ms.No.1078,             dated      29.11.1991.            Subsequently,   the

nomenclature of the said Corporation was changed as Andhra

Pradesh        Geeta      Parisramika          Sahakara         Arthika      Sankshema

Samstha, Hyderabad. The appellant herein along with two other

employees came up before this Court stating that they have put in

5 to 7 years of service and they have not been regularised and a

prayer was made for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or

direction directing the respondents to regularise their services.

A counter affidavit has been filed in the writ petition stating

that the appellant was appointed contrary to the staffing pattern

and in excess of the sanctioned posts without following the

mandatory procedure of seeking sponsoring of the candidates

from the Employment Exchange and rule of reservation was

violated. The respondents in the writ petition opposed the prayer

of regularisation of the petitioners.

The appellant has also claimed before the learned Single

Judge that she is entitled for regularisation even though

G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 was issued directing

regularisation of persons, who have put in five years of service.

The aforesaid Government Order provides for five years of service

for regularisation and the appellant was certainly not having five

years of service for regularisation. Not only this, the regularisation

has to be done against clear vacancies and no sanctioned vacancy

was available at the relevant point of time. The learned Single

Judge has dismissed the writ petition taking into account the

Judgments delivered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v.

Uma Devi1, State of U.P., v Deshraj2 and Punjab Water Supply and

Sewerage Board v. Ranjodh Singh3.

This Court has carefully gone through the Judgment

delivered in the case of Uma Devi (supra). It is the settled

(2006) 4 SCC 1

(2007) 1 SCC 257

(2007) 2 SCC 491

proposition of law that regularisation depends upon various

factors like the nature of work, number of posts lying vacant, the

financial condition of the employer, the additional financial

burden caused, the suitability of the workmen for the job, the

manner and reason for which the initial appointments were made

and no parity can be claimed based on regularisation made in

respect of the earlier years.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of the

Managing Director, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited v. Chiggan Lal4,

has allowed the petition preferred by the employer arising out of

the orders passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench,

directing regularisation of the employees in almost similar facts

and circumstances of the case, declining the relief of

regularisation.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the appointment of

the appellant was certainly de hors the recruitment rules, favour

was done to her as reflected from the record by appointing her

contrary to the rules and contrary to the procedure provided for

appointment, that too without therebeing any vacancy in the

organisation and therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified

in dismissing the writ petition. This Court does not find any

Civil Appeal No.1875 of 2002, dated 07.03.2022

reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single

Judge.

The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending

miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall

be no order as to costs.

________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_______________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 23.03.2022 pln