9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 1188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tervention of any court and without the protection of any interim orders of any court or tribunal. In the year 2002 they filed Writ Petitions (Nos. 31687-31689/2002) seeking regularization. The said writ petitions were allowed by a learned Single Judge of Karnataka High Court by order dated 27.9.2002 with a direction to consider their representations in accordance with the judgment dated 24.1.2001 in W.A. Nos. 5697/2000 and 6677-7351/2000. The writ appeals filed by the appellants against the said order were dismissed by a Division Bench by the impugned order dated 28.7.2004 holding that the respondents will be entitled to regularization, depending upon the terms and conditions of appointment, availability of existing substantive vacancies, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below: 5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against `regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled: (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services. 7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e/ad-hoc/casual for long periods and then periodically regularize them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10.4.2006 (the date of decision in Umadevi) without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularization. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, wil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
