RASMIKANTA SATPATHY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Sri Rashmikanta Satpathy has sought to challenge the order dated 3.1.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.127 of 1998 whereby the Tribunal has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for regularization of his service notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner had been selected for the special qualifying examination meant for the regularization of service which has not taken place till date.

(2.) THE petitioner is a graduate from Utkal University and after acquiring such qualification, he registered his name in the Employment Exchange at Bhubaneswar. The Employment Exchange referred the name of the petitioner to the opposite party No.3, i.e., Deputy Director, Weavers Service Centre, Bhubaneswar for the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on adhoc basis for a period of 89 days as the petitioner, having been duly sponsored by the Employment Exchange along with other candidates appeared in an interview board held on 11.8.1995 and after completion of the said interview, the petitioner stood first in the merit list and accordingly, he was offered employment by opposite party No.2, i.e., Director of Weavers Service Centre, Guwahati. The petitioner joined in his post under the Deputy Director, Weavers Service Centre, Bhubaneswar and upon satisfaction of the performance of the petitioner, his services were extended from time to time by issuing various orders with artificial breaks. In the year 1996, the Union of India in the Ministry of Textiles afforded an scheme for regularization of Adhoc appointments in Weavers Service Centres and accordingly, prescribed proforma was issued to the petitioner for making necessary application. It is further stated that the petitioner had duly filled up the said prescribed proforma since he satisfies the eligibility conditions and the said application was duly forwarded to the opposite party No.1 - Ministry of Textiles on 15th January, 1997. It is also stated by the petitioner that opposite party No.3 - Deputy Director, Weavers Service Centre, Bhubaneswar also recommended the case of the petitioner for regularization and since no action was taken on the said matter, certain reminders were sent to opposite party No.1 from time to time by the opposite party No.3 but in vein.

(3.) MR . Satpathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Vijay Goyal (Smt.) and others and others v. Union of India, 1998 (1) SCC 376 supports the case of the petitioner. He further submitted that a conscious decision had been taken by the opposite party No.1 for regularization of the applicants services and the petitioner had been issued with the proforma application form on 12.12.1996 which he was required to fill up and send for the regularization of his adhoc appointment. It is admitted that not only the petitioner has sent his proforma application but his application had also been recommended by the Deputy Director, Weavers Service Centre Bhubaneswar -opposite party No.3 under cover of his letter dated 7.1.1997, 9.7.1997 and 12.2.1998 under Annexures 4, 5 and 6 respectively. It is further submitted that in similar circumstances where vacancies of Lower Division Clerks could not be filled through the medium of subordinate service commission, the posts were filled through the Selection Committee duly constituted and the recruitment was done consistent with the eligibility conditions of age, educational qualifications and qualifying in the typing test as prescribed in Recruitment Rules and the petitioner satisfies all the conditions. It is further averred that such regularization of adhoc services of Lower Division Clerks against the regular post had already taken place in stations at Bhagalpur, Chomoli and Guwahati where the counter parts of the petitioner who were otherwise junior to him were regularized in service.