Case Note & Summary
The matter involved two writ petitions filed before the High Court of Bombay against a common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 15 September 2017. The CAT had dismissed original applications filed by the petitioners challenging denial of regularization of their services as Post Graduate Teachers (PGT) and Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT). The petitioners were initially appointed in the years 2006 and 2007 in schools in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. Their appointments were made through advertisements that invited applications for posts on a daily wage basis, and some advertisements explicitly stated that appointees would have no claim for regularization. The petitioners contended that they had undergone a proper selection process involving written tests and merit lists, and that they were appointed due to a dire need for teachers. They argued that a regularization policy existed, as evidenced by an office memorandum dated 24 May 2010 and admissions in the respondents' own affidavit before the CAT. The petitioners relied on the decisions in Nihal Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (2013) 14 SCC 65 and Sachin Ambadas Dawale & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2014 (2) Mh. L.J. 36, contending that the State cannot refuse to regularize employees by citing initial temporary appointments when there was a clear understanding of regularization upon sanctioning of posts. They also argued that refusal would constitute exploitation and violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondents, on the other hand, pointed out that the appointments were purely on daily wage basis, the posts were not sanctioned at the time, and regular selection procedures were not followed. They highlighted that soon after the posts were sanctioned, regular recruitment advertisements were issued, and special relaxations in age and experience were granted to the petitioners, indicating no exploitation. The Court heard arguments and reserved judgment on 16 July 2018, with the final judgment pronounced on 24 July 2018. The specific outcome of the petitions is not discernible from the provided text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in denying regularization to the petitioners who were appointed on daily wage basis despite following selection procedure and existence of a regularization policy, and whether the principles in Umadevi (3) and Nihal Singh apply.
Law Points
- Regularization of daily wage employees
- principles in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)
- Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab
- contractual appointment terms
- advertisement conditions
- Article 14 of the Constitution of India
- exploitation of workforce
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (07) 47
Writ Petition No. 13968 of 2017 and Writ Petition No. 14191 of 2017
Smt. V. K. Tahilramani, Acting C.J., M. S. Sonak, J.
Mr. Shrihari Aney, Mr. Rahul Walia, Mr. R. S. Apte, Mr. S. S. Deshmukh
Hareshbhai Mohanbhai Patel & Ors., Karansinh C. Thakor & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order denying regularization of services to the petitioners.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing and setting aside of the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dated 15 September 2017 and a direction for regularization of their services as Post Graduate Teachers and Trained Graduate Teachers.
Filing Reason
The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the original applications, holding that the petitioners' initial appointments were on daily wage basis and they had no claim for regularization.
Previous Decisions
The Central Administrative Tribunal, by a common order dated 15 September 2017, dismissed Original Application No. 862 of 2010 and connected Original Applications, finding that the petitioners were appointed on daily wage basis with no guarantee of regularization, and relaxations had been granted to them.
Issues
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in denying regularization to the petitioners despite their long service and the government's regularization policy.
Whether the principles in Umadevi (3) and Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab apply to the facts.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners: Appointments were made after proper selection procedures (advertisement, written test, merit list); there was a dire need for teachers; a regularization policy existed (OM dated 24.05.2010 and admissions in affidavit); reliance on Nihal Singh (2013) 14 SCC 65 and Sachin Dawale 2014 (2) Mh. L.J. 36, arguing that State cannot refuse to regularize by citing initial temporary appointments when regularization was understood; refusal would lead to exploitation and violate Article 14; advertisement condition against regularization is not fatal due to small geographical area and presumption that all eligible candidates applied.
Respondents: Petitioners were appointed on daily wage basis through advertisements that explicitly denied regularization claims; posts were not sanctioned at the time of initial appointment; regular selection procedures were not followed; within three years of posts being sanctioned, regular recruitment advertisements were issued; special relaxations in age and experience were given to petitioners, indicating no exploitation; service rendered on daily wage basis does not confer a right to regularization.
Judgment Excerpts
the CAT ... has held that grant of relief of regularization to the petitioners ... 'would make nonsense of the specific condition advertised under which the selection had taken place'.
the ruling in Nihal Singh (supra) applies to the case of the petitioners with full force and the rejection of the relief of regularization would amount to granting the respondents licence to exploit the services of the petitioners.
Procedural History
Petitioners filed Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging denial of regularization and the advertisements for regular recruitment. The CAT dismissed the applications on 15.09.2017. Against that, writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Bombay in 2017. The High Court heard arguments and reserved judgment on 16.07.2018, and pronounced judgment on 24.07.2018.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 14
