ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT, CHITTOOR Vs. G.CHITTI BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Writ Petition is filed assailing the Orders dated 27.08.1997 in O.A. No. 932 of 1994, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal declared the respondents as having been properly selected for Category-D posts. The facts in brief are that the Department of Telecommunication (for brevity, "the Department") has banned engagement of part time casual labourers through Orders dated 14.08.1984 and that of full time casual labourers through Orders dated 30.03.1985, giving exemption to certain project works, such as Railway Electrification Projects, Telecom and Coaxial Cable Projects etc. Later, even by removing these exemptions, a total ban was imposed on fresh engagement of casual labourers through Orders dated 22.06.1988. In course of time, the Department introduced a scheme called Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, through its proceedings dated 07.11.1989, according to which, vacancies in Group-D cadre in various offices of the Department would be exclusively filled up by regularisation of casual labourers, but not by any outsiders. Through Proceedings dt. 17.12.1990, it was clarified that part time labourers were not eligible for grant of temporary status under the above scheme.

(2.) It is further stated that since 1985 the Department had gone on expanding Telegraph offices, for which the need of fresh man power was felt. Though there was a ban on recruitment, some of the Telegraph units engaged part time casual labourers in the vacant Group-D posts. Thus came into existence the appointments of the respondents No. 1 to 4 herein, effected by the Superintendent of Telegraphs, Nellore Division, (for short, "the Recruiting Authority"), on different dates beginning on 09.10.1986. Having come to know of the ad hoc recruitment in various units of the Department, the Director, (Telegraph Traffic), issued a Letter dated 29.04.1994, communicating the decision of Regional Joint Consultative Machinery, that the services of those persons, who were engaged post-ban should be dispensed with by the end of six months' period from the date of their engagement. It was further communicated that fresh batch of employees could be appointed through contract. In fact, this decision on the part of the Department was challenged by the respondents by filing O.A. No. 982 of 1994 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (the Tribunal).

(3.) While the proceedings were pending before the Tribunal, the Recruiting Authority, through his Letter dated 13.09.1994, called for recruitment of Group-D posts from among the existing casual labourers, said to have been inducted subsequent to the ban, which category includes the respondents as well. This process is stated to be in violation of the departmental restrictions placed on recruitment. Since the respondents, along with others, had responded to the notification and participated in the selection process, they were appointed to the group-D posts through Proceedings dated 27.01.1995. In fact, the respondents were also given posting orders by the said recruiting authority through letter dated 02.02.1995.