v.
AUGUST 18, 1994
SeT11ice Law-Temporary appointmenr-Scheme for regularisation ofConditions of applicability-Held inapplicable to employee who has not passed the qualifying test. C
The appellant was appointed on May 21, 1977 but was removed from service subsequently. He unsuccessfully challenged his removal before the Tribunal. In appeal to this Court it was contended on his behalf that in view of the scheme framed by the Union of India vide its Circular No. 19/S~/80-Estt. I dated 8.6.84, which prescribed that all persons appointed D temporarily to Group C posts on or prior to November 4, 1978 should be regularised, the appellant was entitled to regularisation; a proper construction of the circular would show that failure of the appellant to pass the test is not a ground to deny him regularisation.
E Dismissing the appeal, this Court
HELD : Regularisation has to be considered in the light of the scheme framed by the Department. It is not an automatic regularisation. A reading of the Circular clearly indicates that the question of regularisa· tioo bas to be done by a committee duly constituted for regularisation of p the persons appointed temporarily to Group C posts. Admittedly, the appellant did not pass the qualifying test conducted by the competent commltte. Therefore, he could not be regularised. Thus, there is no illegality lo the order passed by the Tribunal. [761-E, C-D]
Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Develoment Corporation, G [1990] 1 S.C.C. 361, cited.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5713 of 1994.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.4.90 of the Central Ad- H
A ministrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at New Bombay in O.A. No. 368
of 1987.
B.K. Mehta, Ms. Divya Bahal, Ms. Meeta Sharma and B.V. Desai for
the Appellant.
B K.N. shukla, Avtar Singh Rawat and S.N. Terdol for the Respon-
dents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted. c
The appellant was appointed on May 21, 1977 and was removed on
April 13, 1987. When the appellant approached the Tribunal, the Tribunal
in the impugned order dated April 19, 1990 made in O.A. No. 368/87
cjismissing the petition. Thus this appeal by special leave. D Shri Mehta, learned senior counsel for the appellant placing heavy
reliance on the decision of this Court in Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State
Mineral Development Corporation, [1990] 1 SCC 361, contended that the
Union of India, Ministry of Irrigation had issued the circular No. 19/50/80-
Estt. I, dated 8.6.1984, directing that all those candidates temporarily E appointed on or prior to November 4, 1978 should be regularised and that
the question of the appellant appearing for the test asked for by the
Department and his nonclearance should not be a ground to deny him
regularisation of his temporary appointment on the proper construction of
the above circular, it is clear that he is entitled to that relief. Therefore,
the Tribunal has committed gravious error in dismissing the appellat's O.A.F
The said circular reads as under :
"Sub : Regularisation of appointmnets made by CWC to the grade
of LDCs/Steno prior to taking over of recruitment by the S.S.C. G Sir,
I am directed to refer to the correspondence rusting with the
CWC letter No.8/11012/2/82-E.VII dated 19th Jan' 89, on the above
subject and to say that it has been decided with the approval of H DPAR, that all ad-hoc appointments made in the grade of
LDCs/Stenos prior to 4.11.1978 may be regularised as a special A
case. The DPAR vide their OM No. 24012/41/78-Estt.(B) dated
4-11-1978 and made it mandatory for every Deptt. that recruitment
to Group 'C' posts in the attached and sub-offices should be made
only through the SSC. Hence 4.11.1978 has been fixed, as the
cut-off date for regularisaing the adhoc appointment in the grade B
of LDCs/stenos.
2. I am to request that necessary action may now be taken imme-
diately under intimation to all concerned."
A reading of it clearly indicates that the Government have approved C the proposal made by the DPAR that all adhoc appointments made in the grade of LDCs/Stenos prior to November 4, 1978 be regularised as special case. It is also made mandatory for every department that the recruitment to group 'C' posts in the attached sub-offices should be made only through S.S.C. thereafter. In that context, November 4, 1978 has been fixed as a cut-off date for regularisation of adhoc appointments in the grade of D LDCs/Stenos. It ts clear that the question of regularisation has to be done by a committee duly constituted for regularisation of the persons appointed temporarily to Group C posts, namely, LDCs/Stenos. Admittedly, the appellant had appeared thrice. It is stated that on one occasion the result was not declared. Admittedly on two occasions results were declared and E he did not pass the qualifying test conducted by the competent committee. Therefore, he could not be regularised. Regularisation in that context has to be considered in the light of the scheme framed by the Department. It is not an automatic regularisation as contended for. Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. F
The appeal is accordingly dismissed No Cost.
T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.