Recruitment/talent Acquisition, Career Counselling
Consultant In Legal Matters
11th June 2015 From India, Kolkata
#AnonymousAdvirtised for engagement on contract for one year. Later same contract renewed with artificial break of 5 to 15 days and two years without break and enhancing contract remuneration.
11th June 2015 From India, Kolkata
Seeking opinions from Seniors too.
12th June 2015 From India, Ahmadabad
16th June 2015 From India, New Delhi
17th June 2015 From India, New Delhi
17th June 2015 From India, New Delhi
Delhi High Court
Dharmendra Prasad Singh & Ors. vs The Chairman, State Bank Of India & ... on 9 February, 2015
8. In my opinion, I need not at all go into the arguments urged on behalf of both the parties as to petitioners falling or not falling within the policy dated 20.7.2010 and as qualified by the letter dated 18.8.2010, inamsuch as, if I allow the reliefs claimed by the petitioners, then the effect of granting of the reliefs will be that contractual employees will get regularization as permanent employees of the respondent no.1 which is a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and which is wholly impermissible under the ratio of Umadevi's case (supra). Even if we take that petitioners are fully covered under the policy dated 20.7.2010 and as clarified by the letter dated 18.8.2010 and though which is disputed on behalf of respondent no.1, I am of the clear opinion that the reliefs cannot be granted to the petitioners on the ground that the policy of the respondent no.1 dated 20.7.2010 itself is unsustainable and grossly illegal inasmuch as it flies in the face of the ratio of the judgment in the case of Umadevi & Ors. (supra). This aspect I will dilate in few paras later, however, at this stage I would seek to refer to a recent judgment decided by me in a bunch of cases with the lead case being Radhey Shyam and Ors. Vs. GNCT of Delhi and Ors. in W.P.(C) No. 471/2015 decided on 22.1.2015. The connected case decided with the bunch of cases is the case of Som Dutt and Ors. Vs. GNCT of Delhi and Ors. in W.P.(C) No. 474/2015. In the case of Radhey Shyam (supra), I have held that contractual employees cannot seek regularization in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi & Ors. (supra). While dealing with the facts in the case of Som Dutt and Ors. (supra), I have deliberated on the aspect as to if contractual employees are employed in terms of a regular selection process, but only as contractual appointees, both in terms of the advertisement and appointment letters, had the requisite eligibility criteria of being appointed in the permanent posts, whether such contractual employees can be regularized on the ground that they have been selected through a process which involved calling of candidates through advertisement and who were thereafter selected pursuant to a selection process containing the eligibility criteria of the permanent posts, and I have held that once the contractual employment is sought for through such specific advertisement for contractual appointments, the contractual employees cannot seek regularization inasmuch as otherwise this will amount to fraud on the common citizens of this country and the common citizens being such candidates who would not have applied for appointments to the contractual posts and instead waited for advertisements in permanent posts of an employer. This is stated in paras 14 and 15 of the judgment in Radhey Shyam's (supra) and Som Dutt's (supra) cases and which paras read as under:-
"14. Petitioners in this case seek appointment as Lab Technicians/Lab Assistants. In the present case, the relief which is claimed by the petitioners of their being regularized cannot be granted because if petitioners are specifically appointed for contractual period in terms of the advertisement which required only contractual employment for 11 months, then, if the petitioners are regularized only because they were appointed against sanctioned posts, the same would be clearly a violation of the ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Umadevi (supra) because if the petitioners are directed to be regularized merely because there existed sanctioned posts, although the advertisement and appointments were only and specifically for 11 months only, then what will happen is that by issuing of an advertisement by the respondent no.2 which was only for contractual appointments of a limited period of 11 months, injustice would be caused to dozens or hundreds of other persons who would not have applied to the posts on the ground that the posts are contractual posts only for 11 months and such persons, being the ordinary citizens, who therefore would seek appointment with other employers who would offer permanent posts. If this Court allows regularization of the petitioners, and merely because petitioners are appointed against sanctioned posts, the spirit of the ratio of Umadevi's case (supra) would be violated because then in such cases the authorities of the State instead of making regular appointments to sanctioned posts, will advertise and make contractual appointments to sanctioned posts for specified periods, and thereby play a fraud upon general public being persons who would have applied if the posts were advertised as permanent posts. Thus regularization cannot be granted only because petitioners were appointed against sanctioned posts, once the advertisement and appointments were only for a limited period of just 11 months.
15. It is not the ratio of Umadevi's case (supra) that contractual employees must be regularized only because there are vacant sanctioned posts to which they were appointed to limited contractual period of mere 11 months, inasmuch as, Umadevi (supra) requires that the appointments must be as per the regular recruitment process and rules which will require advertisement for appointments as permanent posts, and much less because in terms of the ratio of the Umadevi's case (supra), the Delhi State Services Selection Board (DSSSB), and who appoints employees for the respondent no.2, has already issued a circular that there should not be appointments to regular posts except in accordance with the law and the process as specified in the regular recruitment rules."
13. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition because this Court cannot grant regularization to contractual employees in violation of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi & Ors. (supra).
18th June 2015 From India, New Delhi
With due regards & appreciation to the issue you have raised, can pl PUT ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE on the table in a SINGLE SHOT?
You surely have some situation that you are referring to.....but the way you keep raising new points in reply to the answers to the earlier ones by the members only drags the issue & I DON'T THINK you will get the actionable solution you are looking for.
Best is to explain the ACTUAL situation rather than raise queries in bits & pieces--that would benefit you far better.
18th June 2015 From India, Hyderabad
#AnonymousOne of my friend was working in a psu on contract basis in managerial position for last eight years. Initially for one year then extended for 3 years (6 months duration in each extension for 6 times ) after that two yeras (one year period for 2 times ) and again 2 years(6 months period for 4 times).Now company stopped renewing contract and he is become jobless.Also he has crossed age limit for PSU job
24th June 2015 From India, Kolkata