P.SRINIVASAN, J. - (1.) In this application, the applicant who was working for long periods as a casual worker in the posts of Junior Deckhand, Cook and Netmender in the past from 1977 onwards complains that he has been wrongly denied appointment in any of those capacities after 8.3.1987.
(2.) Mr. Sunit Dutta, the learned Council for the applicant submitted that the applicant had worked for the following periods as Junior Deckhand, Cook and Netmender: (1) 6. 1.1977 to 7. 9.1980 - 1341 days in all continuously (2) 17. 1.1981 to 15. 2.1982 - - 390 days in all continuously (3) 6. 5.1982 to 31.12.1983 - 605 days in all continuously (4) 29. 5.1984 to 30. 9.1985 - 490 days in all continuously (5) 10. 6.1986 to 7.10.1986 - 120 days in all continuously (6) 13.11.1986 to 8. 3.1987 - 116 days in all continuously The Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs bad in two Office Memorandums, dated 2.12.1966 and 12.2.1969 issued instructions that casual labourer who had put in at least 240 days service in that capacity including broken periods of service in a year for two consecutive years are eligible for appointment to posts in the regular establishment. The applicant not merely fulfilled these requirements but he had actually worked continuously for nearly four years from 6.1.1977 to 7.1.1980 and in 1982 and 1983, he had worked for a total period of 605 days with breaks. Again in 1984 and 1985, he had worked for 490 days without a break. He was thus eligible for appointment to a post in the regular establishment of the respondents and yet he has been denied such appointment. The Office memorandum, dated 26.9.1979 provides that the minimum age limit for appointment should be relaxed "after computing the service as casual employee based on 240 days service each year." If that was done, the applicant was eligible for appointment. Since the applicant had worked as Jr. Deckhand, Cook and Netmender, albiet on casual basis for long periods, he was suitable for holding those posts. Sri Dutta further refuted the contention of the respondents that not having been sponsored by the Employment Exchange he could not be offered regular employment. The respondents had further asserted that there was no vacancy in which he could be absorbed. Mr. Dutta submitted that there were vacancies and such vacancies which arose in the past were also filled up by other persons.
(3.) Mr. A. Sattar, Additional Standing Counsel leading Mr. C.R. Bag, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted in the first place that there was no vacancies available in the posts of Deckhand, Cook and Netmender in which the applicant could be absorbed. The respondents had informed the applicant of this position in their letter, dated 25.9.1987 (page 31 of the Reply). Moreover, the Recruitment Rules for the post of Cook and Netmender Group -D, provided for filling up of the posts by direct recruits through Employment Exchange, Advertisement, Viva -Voce or through competitive examination to be conducted, while in respect of Junior Deckhand the available posts had to be filled up to the extent of 50% by posting Fishing second -hand trainees sponsored by Central Institute of Fisheries, 40% by promotion and 10% by transfer. The applicant did not fall in any of the sources of the Recruitment Rules and so his case could not be taken up for consideration, particularly when his name had not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange.;