UMESH SINGH Vs. CHANCELLOR LT GOVERMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above captioned batch of writ petitions pertain to a dispute raised by Attendants engaged by Indira Gandhi National Open University on daily wage basis. Petitioners in the captioned petitions state that they have been employed on daily wage basis from the year 1996 and onwards; It may be clarified that some petitioners claim to have been appointed on daily wage basis in the year 1996. Some claim appointment with effect from 1997 and so on till the year 2002. Relying upon certain office notes, petitioners allege that the Administrative Wing of IGNOU commenced a proposal which would reveal that more hands are required than the sanctioned posts in the cadre. Proposals were to the effect that services of daily wage persons be regularized. Petitioners allege that since work is being performed by them for a number of years, mandamus be issued to IGNOU to absorb the petitioners as regular employees.

(2.) As per the stand taken by the University, it is engaged in imparting distant education. Apart from normal day to day work, which is performed by the University, it needs extra hands at specified intervals of the year. As per the University, extra hands are required intermittently. It has been explained in the counter that extra hands are required at admission time and when study material has to be dispatched; as also during examination time. During these 3 periods, large volume of work relating to packaging, forwarding and dispatch of material has to be performed. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the University has 48 regional centers and 1000 study centers. 84 programmes of staudy are being offered to over 10 lakhs students. The University denies in the counter affidavit that perennial job requirement exists.

(3.) Writ petitions are also opposed on the ground that highly disputed questions of fact arise for consideration and this court cannot direct the University to create regular posts. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there are regular vacancies and petitioners can be adjusted against the same. Counsel for the respondent denies the aforesaid fact.