CENTRAL WELFARE BOARD Vs. ANJALI BEPARI MS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr Bijan Kumar Ghosh, Advocate takes notice for Respondent 1.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the respondent came to be appointed against a casual vacancy in the central Social Welfare Board Scheme. The respondent has been continuing ever since the date of appointment, namely, 11/2/1992. Shefiled writ petition in the Calcutta High court for direction to regularise her services. The learned Single Judge held in the judgment that she was not entitled to regularisation as the mode of her appointment was not in accordance with the rules. In the impugned order dated 24/1/1996, the division bench in FMAT No. 16 of 1995 reversed the order of the learned Single Judge and directed regularisation of the services of the respondent as under:

(3.) Calling this order in question, this Special Leave Petition has been filed. It is not in dispute that the project is being wound up in a phased manner and the services of the employees are being dispensed accordingly. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no one junior to the respondent was allowed to continue in the said project. It is stated that there are other projects being operated similarly, but the persons engaged therein also are continuing on temporary basis and are senior to the respondent. Therefore, she cannot be regularised in any other scheme. In view of the above stand, we direct the petitioners to continue the respondent in any other temporary scheme but keeping in mind the overall seniority of all the persons; the dispensing with the services should be on last- come-first-go basis, i. e. , the juniormost incumbent has to go out first. As and when vacancies would arise, such persons whose services have been dispensed with will be taken back without following the practice of requisitioning the names of candidates from the employment exchange. They would be regularised only when regular posts are available and in accordance with the order of seniority,