Summary
The State challenged a direction to consider regularisation of contractual drivers, if necessary by creating supernumerary posts. They had been appointed for a temporary earthquake-rehabilitation project rather than sanctioned posts in a regular establishment, and ten of their seventeen years of service followed an interim court order. The Court held that these circumstances did not justify the direction, distinguished the regularisation precedents relied upon and restored dismissal of the writ petition.
Issues
- Whether long contractual service in a temporary project justified a direction for absorption or creation of supernumerary posts.
- Whether service continued under an interim court order could support the regularisation claim.
Held
- The drivers’ fixed-term, fixed-salary appointments belonged to a temporary project unit, not sanctioned posts in a regular government establishment. A direction for their absorption or regularisation through creation of supernumerary posts was unsustainable. (¶ 5-6)
- Ten years of the asserted seventeen-year tenure resulted from interim protection. That period had to be excluded in evaluating the claim based on prolonged service; the High Court had overlooked this circumstance. (¶ 6-7)
- The regularisation principles relied on concerned irregular appointments against sanctioned posts in regular establishments and did not apply to these temporary project appointments. Narendra Kumar Tiwari also arose in materially different circumstances. (¶ 8-8.1)
- The State was not obliged, on closure of this temporary project, to transfer the contractual employees to another establishment. Its offer of placement with the Indian Red Cross Society did not create a right to absorption in government service. (¶ 9)
- Describing the direction as confined to peculiar facts and not a precedent could not cure the lack of a proper basis for ordering absorption or regularisation through creation of posts. (¶ 10)
Result
State’s appeal allowed without costs. The Division Bench judgment was set aside and the Single Judge’s order dismissing the employees’ writ petition was restored.