It is settled that once the contractual employment is sought through a specific advertisement for contractual appointments, the contractual employees cannot seek regularization. Otherwise, this would amount to fraud on the common citizens of this country. The common citizens are candidates who would not have applied for appointments to the contractual posts and instead waited for advertisements for permanent posts of an employer. Thus, when the matter of PSUs like RITES India Ltd. is taken to court, such a policy will be quashed in terms of the following decision of the Delhi High Court relying upon the Umadevi decision:
Delhi High Court
Dharmendra Prasad Singh & Ors. vs. The Chairman, State Bank of India & ... on 9 February 2015
In my opinion, I need not go into the arguments urged on behalf of both parties as to whether petitioners fall within the policy dated 20.7.2010 and as qualified by the letter dated 18.8.2010. If I allow the reliefs claimed by the petitioners, then the effect will be that contractual employees will be regularized as permanent employees of the respondent no.1, which is a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. This is wholly impermissible under the ratio of Umadevi's case. Even if we assume that petitioners are fully covered under the policy dated 20.7.2010 and as clarified by the letter dated 18.8.2010, which is disputed by respondent no.1, I am of the clear opinion that the reliefs cannot be granted to the petitioners. The policy of respondent no.1 dated 20.7.2010 itself is unsustainable and grossly illegal as it goes against the judgment in the case of Umadevi & Ors. This aspect will be explained later. At this stage, I would like to refer to a recent judgment 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, I have held that contractual employees cannot seek regularization in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi & Ors. While dealing with the facts in the case of Som Dutt and Ors., I have deliberated on whether contractual employees, employed through a regular selection process but only as contractual appointees, can be regularized. I have held that once the contractual employment is sought through a specific advertisement for contractual appointments, the contractual employees cannot seek regularization. This would amount to fraud on the common citizens of this country. This is stated in paras 14 and 15 of the judgment in Radhey Shyam's and Som Dutt's cases and the paras read as follows:
"14. Petitioners in this case seek appointment as Lab Technicians/Lab Assistants. In the present case, the relief of their regularization cannot be granted. If petitioners are specifically appointed for a 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, it would be a violation of the ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Umadevi. 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, then injustice would be caused to dozens or hundreds of other persons who would not have applied to the posts. This is because the posts are contractual posts only for 11 months, and such persons, being ordinary citizens, would seek appointment with other employers offering permanent posts. If this Court allows regularization of the petitioners, merely because petitioners were appointed against sanctioned posts, the spirit of the ratio of Umadevi's case would be violated. 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, thereby playing a fraud upon the general public. 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 that contractual employees must be regularized only because there are vacant sanctioned posts to which they were appointed for a limited contractual period of mere 11 months. Umadevi requires that appointments must be as per the regular recruitment process and rules, which will require advertisement for appointments as permanent posts. This is because, in terms of the ratio of Umadevi's case, the Delhi State Services Selection Board (DSSSB), which appoints employees for 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 specified in the regular recruitment rules."
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.
Thanks,
Sushil