Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1035 (PAT)

Registrar, Rajendra Agriculture University, Pusa, Samastipur, District- Samastipur v. Kaushlendra Kumar

2013-08-22

ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, R.M.DOSHIT

body2013
ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent preferred by the respondent Rajendra Agriculture University (hereinafter referred to as “the University”) arises from the judgment and order dated 11th March 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. No. 645 of 2002. 2. The matter at dispute is the selection and appointment made to Class-III service in the University pursuant to the Advertisement No. 8 of 1998. 3. On perusal of the records and on hearing the extensive arguments advanced by the learned advocates, it appears that over the time the University had employed a large number of casual employees who were grouped as highly skilled, skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled daily wage employees for various duties to be performed in the University. The question of their regularization in service reached the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 18594 of 1994. The Hon’ble Supreme Court having considered the issues, allowed the University to fill in 35% of the vacancies in Class-IV service by appointment of casual employees having more than fifteen years of service. For the remaining 65% of the vacancies, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that the same shall be filled in by selection and recruitment by following due procedure. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also allowed those casual employees who were not absorbed on 35 % of the vacancies to compete with other applicants. In case of in service applicants, the University was directed to give weightage of 2% for every year of service rendered by them subject to a maximum 30%. As far as Class-III posts were concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the same principle will be followed giving them the same relaxation in age. 4. It further appears that pursuant to the aforesaid direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 18th February 1988, the selection process has been completed. 35% of the vacancies were filled in by accommodation of the casual employees whereas the remaining 65% vacancies were filled in by advertisement and the recruitment process. 5. The centre of dispute is the aforesaid 65% vacancies in Class-III service. The writ petitioner is one of the applicants, pursuant to the Advertisement No. 8 of 1998 for filling up of the 65% of the vacancies in Class-III post in the University. 5. The centre of dispute is the aforesaid 65% vacancies in Class-III service. The writ petitioner is one of the applicants, pursuant to the Advertisement No. 8 of 1998 for filling up of the 65% of the vacancies in Class-III post in the University. It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that the University allowed the casual employees working on Class-IV posts to compete for the 65% vacancies in Class-III service giving them the relaxation in age and weightage for experience as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the result, all the vacancies were filled in by casual employees working on Class-IV posts. The petitioner and such others had no room for selection. 6. The challenge to the selection of casual employees for appointment against 65 % of the vacancies in class-III posts in above C.W.J.C. No. 645 of 2002 has succeeded. The learned single Judge has held that the casual employees working on Class-IV posts were not supposed to be considered for appointment on Class-III posts and that the University has committed a gross illegality by allowing such Class-IV employees to compete for appointment to Class-III service. According to the learned single Judge, only Class-III casual employees could have been considered for appointment to remaining 65% of vacancies in Class-III posts. To cull the intention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned single Judge has invoked the principles of interpretation of statutes. Learned single Judge has observed, “the University will have to examine the cases of other causal employees also who were empanelled and were appointed against class-III posts.” The University has been directed, “to hold fresh exercise, as it intends to do, within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and take a decision afresh.” Feeling aggrieved, the University has preferred this Appeal. 7. Learned advocate Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyaya has appeared for the University. He has submitted that the University had employed casual employees in the above referred four categories. They were not classified as either Class-IV employees or Class-III employees. The said four categories of casual employees formed one common group of casual employees and in the understanding of the University all were entitled to be considered for regular appointment either in Class-IV service or Class-III service depending upon their eligibility. He has further submitted that the appointments have been made long ago. Mr. The said four categories of casual employees formed one common group of casual employees and in the understanding of the University all were entitled to be considered for regular appointment either in Class-IV service or Class-III service depending upon their eligibility. He has further submitted that the appointments have been made long ago. Mr. Upadhyaya has extensively relied upon the impugned judgment passed by the learned single Judge and the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He has also relied upon the order dated 21st February 2002 made by this Court (Coram: Justice S.N. Jha, as he then was) in the matter of Kumari Rekha v. Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 13880 of 2001). He has submitted that in the identical matter, the identical claim made by the writ petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 13880 of 2001 had been dismissed by the learned single Judge. He has also submitted that the learned single Judge ought not to have directed the University to reopen the entire selection process. 8. The Appeal is contested by the respondent no.1, the writ petitioner. Learned counsel Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary has appeared for the writ petitioner. He has supported the judgment of the learned single Judge. He has submitted that under the guise of the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the University has committed a gross illegality in making appointment of casual employees in Class-III service. He has submitted that the casual employees working on Class-IV posts have been appointed to Class-III service, no person outside the University establishment had a chance of being selected or appointed in the University. He has submitted that the learned single Judge has correctly interpreted the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The matter does not call for interference. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Ajit Kumar has appeared for the writ petitioner. He has submitted that the impugned judgment has been passed with the consensus of the advocates and is not open to challenge. The contention is recorded with a view to rejecting the same. 10. Learned counsel Mr. Y.V.Giri appears for the respondent nos. 6 to 22. He has supported the Appeal. 11. We may at the outset note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed the University to consider the cases of the casual employees for regular appointment in Class-IV posts and in Class-III posts. 10. Learned counsel Mr. Y.V.Giri appears for the respondent nos. 6 to 22. He has supported the Appeal. 11. We may at the outset note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed the University to consider the cases of the casual employees for regular appointment in Class-IV posts and in Class-III posts. The Hon’ble Court also directed to give such employees the benefit of relaxation in age. The Hon’ble Court also took care to ensure that the persons considered for regular employment were eligible for such appointment. Although the Hon’ble Supreme Court had allowed an additional 2% weightage for each year of experience gained by such casual employees, the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not specify in so many words, which category of the casual employees would be considered for regular appointment or which particular category of casual employees would be considered for appointment to Class-III service. Nor did the Hon’ble Supereme Court specify the nature of experience gained by the casual employees that would entitle them an additional weightage of 2% referred to by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In absence of such specific directions, if the University has implemented the direction for appointment to both Class-IV and Class-III services, we will not find fault with the University or will not call it an illegal action by the University. We may also note that the principle of interpretation of statutes can not be invoked for reading the judgments of the Courts. 12. Further, the dispute, in our opinion, has become stale inasmuch as many casual employees who were appointed against regular vacancies have reached the age of superannuation and remaining will soon be approaching the age of superannuation. 13. Besides, the claim emerges from advertisement No.8/1998. For the recruitment process initiated in 1998, the appointment in the year 2013 is unconscionable. The matter calls for closure. 14. For the aforesaid reason, we allow this Appeal. The impugned judgment and order dated 11th March 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 645 of 2002 is set aside. C.W.J.C. No. 645 of 2002 is dismissed.