UNION OF INDIA Vs. UMA MAHESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The ten respondents were engaged over the years on daily wages, and for different periods during each year, by the appellant Regional Director, staff Selection Commission (Southern Region). Their services were discontinued with effect from 19-6-1993. They approached the central administrative tribunal, Madras bench (hereinafter referred to as "the tribunal") praying for their reinstatement and regularisation. The tribunal by its judgment and order dated 21/10/1993 has directed reinstatement of the ten respondents and has also directed the Staff Selection Commission to frame a scheme for absorption of the respondents against Group "d" vacancies which exist or which may arise in their establishment and has given other directions in this connection. The appellant has come in appeal from this decision of the tribunal.

(2.) It is the contention of the appellant that the appellant is already having regular employees for handling and processing the applications received by it in connection with various examinations conducted by it. When there is additional or extra work which is more than what the regular employees canhandle, the appellant engages daily-rated casual workers for handling the extra work. The work involves opening the envelopes containing the applications, numbering them, processing them and so on. According to the appellant, this additional work is not perennial in nature and, therefore, the question of engaging these casual workers on regular basis does not arise.

(3.) The appellant has pointed out that in 1993 a decision was taken by the staff Selection Commission for all its regional offices, to discontinue the engagement of such daily-rated casual workers on account of a large number of problems thrown up because of mishandling of applications by unskilled labourers. It contends that it became necessary to find ways and means to eliminate shortcomings in handling documents of a sensitive nature and also to improve the efficiency, accuracy and speed in connection with their work of selecting candidates for various jobs handled by them, so that they could eliminate a large number of public complaints received on account of mistakes in handling applications by unqualified hands. The Staff Selection commission decided, therefore, to get the work done by Data Processing agencies who are professionals in the Field. The appellant has contended that the services of such agencies are being utilised by other major recruitment boards or agencies in the country. The learned counsel for the appellant has given the example of the Railway Recruitment Boards, banking Services Recruitment Boards and Universities who have found the processing of applications at the pre-examination stage by Data Processing agencies efficient and less prone to mistakes. The Staff Selection commission, therefore, for cogent reasons decided to give the work to such data Processing Agencies.