LAWS(DLH)-2006-7-150

DARSHNA Vs. DELHI POLICE PUBLIC SCHOOL

Decided On July 07, 2006
DARSHNA Appellant
V/S
DELHI POLICE PUBLIC SCHOOL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A learned single Judge of this Court has, while allowing Writ Petition No. 5719/99 directed the respondent school to regularise the services of two of the petitioners before the Court on the basis of their seniority and to continue two others in service till such time regular vacancies are available and to regularise them also as and when they are so available. In regard to the rest of the petitioners, the Court has dismissed the plea for regularisation on the ground that the school does not have any vacancies available with it against which any such regularisation can be ordered. Having said so, the Court has directed that in case any vacancies arise in future, the same shall not be filled up by appointing any person other than the petitioners, if they are willing to serve. The school has been directed to maintain a list of the petitioners in this regard and appoint them as and when vacancies become available. Dissatisfied with this direction, the petitioners whose petitions have been dismissed, have filed the present appeal praying for a direction for immediate regularisation of their services.

(2.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned single Judge does not call for any interference. The direction issued by the Court is, in fact, already over- generous having regard to the law declared by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Versus Uma Devi and Others, 2006 (4) SCC 1. Their Lordships have, in that case, reviewed the entire case law on the subject and held that those who get employed without following a regular procedure or enter the service through the back door on daily wage or other basis cannot claim regularisation as the plea for any such relief fails when tested on the touchstone of equality of opportunity as guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court held : ?Merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the Court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right.?

(3.) Their Lordships further observed that those who get appointed on temporary or casual basis are conscious of the nature of their employment and accept such an employment with their eyes open. They may not be able to bargain for a better status when they are offered such appointments but that is no ground to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and perpetuate an illegality by granting permanence to such temporary or casually employed candidates. By doing so, the Court would be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible. The Court indicated the approach to be adopted in cases where temporary or ad hoc employees seek regularisation by filing petitions in the Court in the following words :-