LAKSHMI AND ORS. Vs. MANONMANIAM SUNDARANAR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners herein, who were engaged as the Non -Teaching Staff like Steno -Typist, Plumber, Electrician, Data Entry Operator, Skilled and Unskilled NMR Employees by the respondent -Manonmaniam Sundaranar University (in short 'University') on temporary daily wages basis, seek to quash Memo No. MSU/R/Estt./Admn/2014, dated 12.11.2014, issued by the University, in and by which, the service of the petitioners with the University was disengaged; and they further seek this Court to direct the University to regularize their services from the date of their appointment.

(2.) SINCE all these writ petitions are interconnected and require joint disposal, they have been heard together and decided by this Common Order.

(3.) PER contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent -University, by denying the claim of the petitioners that their appointment was made against regular vacancies on the basis of the sponsorship of the Employment exchange, would submit that the petitioners, even at the time of their appointment, were well aware of the fact that their employment was a purely contractual & temporary one on daily wage basis. Further, the resolution of the Syndicate dated 03.01.2011 by which the petitioners were appointed also runs in specific terms that the petitioners were engaged on temporary daily wage basis. According to him, in the case of engaging the services of any person by contract, like the petitioners herein, the University need not apply its Statutes in strict sense. Among various decisions cited, by referring to a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty ( : 2011 (3) SCC 436), the ratio has been pointed out that any appointment made purely from the names sponsored by Employment Exchange without inviting applications from all eligible candidates is illegal and violative of Articles -14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. When admittedly the appointments of the petitioners was made without advertising the vacancies and calling for applications from eligible candidates in the open market, now, the petitioners cannot further build up their case for absorption when their appointment itself has no legal sanctity with reference to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He would argue further that the posts against which the petitioners were appointed have not been contemplated under Appendix II of the Statutes, therefore, the appointments made against posts not falling under Appendix -II are illegal and as a consequence, it follows that the petitioners cannot claim regularization. By relying upon a Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and Others ( : 2006 4 SCC 1) and highlighting the ratio laid down therein to the effect that temporary employees have no right to post and to claim regularization, learned counsel would submit that even if a temporary appointee was allowed to continue for a long spell of time, if his or her appointment was not made as per the mandate of Articles -14 and 16, such appointee has no right to claim regularization or absorption. As regards the simile with reference to the Judgment, dated 29.04.2014, rendered in W.A. (MD) Nos. 351 of 2012, etc. arising from the orders, dated 23.11.2011. made in W.P. (MD) Nos. 540 of 2011, learned counsel would reply that the present petitioners cannot claim parity with the petitioners in W.P. No. 540 of 2011 for the reason that they were recommended by the Employment Exchange for the post of Junior Assistant and were fully qualified for being appointed to the said post, whereas, the petitioners were neither appointed as Junior Assistants nor any vacancy is available as on date against such post. Further, the allegation that favouritism is shown to the back -door entrants is denied by the learned counsel by stating that the said allegation is nothing but a misinterpretation made to the resolution of the Syndicate in resolving that the absorbed individual concerned, who had the graduation certificate awarded by the Indian Army, should obtain the formal degree from the regular University within three years. At any rate, according to him, the petitioners, who were never in continuous employment, are not eligible for the relief they seek for and hence, the writ petitions which are completely misdirected may have to be dismissed in threshold.