Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 90 (UTT)

KULDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2020-02-12

LOK PAL SINGH

body2020
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J. By means of aforesaid writ petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking quashing of the impugned advertisement No. 707 dated 16.08.2019 issued by respondent no. 2 of Uttarakhand Technical Education Board qua recruitment of Group-D post in Subordinate Courts of the State of Uttarakhand. 2. Since, controversy involved in both the petitions is similar; therefore, same are being decided by common judgment. 3. Facts, leading to filing of the present petitions, are that petitioners are working as Group-D employees on contractual basis in different judgeships of different Districts; petitioners have challenged the advertisement dated 16.08.2019 inter alia on the ground that vide G.O. No. 877 XXVII (7) CH. SHR./2011 dated 24th March 2011, State of Uttarakhnd took a policy decision whereby Group-D post in each and every Government Department was declared dying cadre and it was decided that in future, work of Group-D shall be taken through outsourcing agency. The State of Uttarakhand started to take work of Group-D in different departments through the employees supplied by Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited, respondent no. 6 herein (hereinafter referred as UPNL); petitioners are deputed as Group-D employees through UPNL and are continuously working, since post of Group-D has been declared dying cadre, therefore, these posts should not be filled up by direct recruitment. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are working since long in different judgeships of different Districts, therefore, their services are liable to be regularized in view of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 . It is further contended that the Division Bench of this Court in WPSS No. 116 of 2018 (PIL), Kundan Singh vs. State & ors, vide its judgment and order dated 12.11.2018 has directed the State Government to regularized the employees sponsored through UPNL in a phased manner within a period of one year as per regularization schemes framed from time to time; further the State Government was directed to ensure that the employees sponsored by UPNL get minimum of pay scale with dearness allowance along with arrears; and further direction was issued not to deduct GST or service tax from the salary of the employees sponsored through UPNL. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further contend that, in case, respondents, pursuant to impugned advertisement, succeeds to fill up the Group-D posts in all the 13 Districts of the State of Uttarakhand through direct recruitment, it would ultimately disengage the petitioners and will violate their fundamental rights as guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. On behalf of respondent no. 3, a counter affidavit has been filed by the Registrar General, High Court of Uttarakhand stating therein that, though, Group-D posts in the State of Uttarakhand were declared dying cadre, however, the State Government took a policy decision dated 17.12.2018 to fill the vacant posts of Group-D in subordinate Courts of the State of Uttarakhand as one time program by direct recruitment. In view of the policy decision, taken by the State Government, High Court of Uttarakhand has decided to fill the posts of Group-D employees in Subordinate Courts on regular basis, thereafter, the advertisement to fill the vacant posts of Group-D has been issued. 5. Respondent no. 6 UPNL also filed its counter affidavit stating therein that judgment and order dated 12.11.2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court has been stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its order dated 01.02.2019. It is contended that there is no violation of petitioners' right. 6. Petitioners have filed their rejoinder affidavit denying the averments made in the counter affidavit of respondent no. 3. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record. 8. Admittedly, petitioners have been engaged through UPNL in the Subordinate Judiciary and they are working on contract basis. Though, vide Government Order dated 24.03.2011, the State Government has declared the Cadre of Group-D as dying cadre, but, having considered the nature of work in the Subordinate Judiciary, the State Government relaxed the aforesaid decision in respect of this High Court and the Subordinate Courts lying under this High Court. On the basis of the policy decision taken by the State Government vide its G.O. dated 17.12.2018 whereby Group-D posts in Subordinate Courts of this High Court is to be filled as one time program from the regular employees, advertisement has been issued. The petitioners are working on contractual basis in the Subordinate Courts; they have every right to submit their application forms pursuant to the advertisement issued for appointment of Group-D posts. The petitioners are working on contractual basis in the Subordinate Courts; they have every right to submit their application forms pursuant to the advertisement issued for appointment of Group-D posts. Petitioners could not make out any case that their fundamental rights are being breached on filling the Group-D posts by direct recruitment. 9. Since, petitioners could not make out any case of breach of fundamental rights and any illegality in the advertisement, this Court do not find it a fit case of interference to quash the impugned advertisement. The writ petitions are devoid of merit and are liable to be dismissed. 10. In view of the above, both the writ petitions stand dismissed accordingly. 11. No order as to costs.