- (1.) WE have heard learned counsel appearing for the State -appellants and learned counsels appearing for the respondents. These Special Appeals are directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge Dt. 8.4.2013, by which, he has allowed the writ petitions, with directions to the State -respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization within a period of four months, and till then, their services will not be terminated to frustrate their cause, unless there are serious complaints followed by an enquiry. A further direction was given that the respondents would be at liberty to utilize the services of the petitioners, as per their requirement, but it will not frustrate their claim for regularization and benefits arising out of it.
(2.) IN pursuance to an advertisement issued in the year 1996, the respondents were engaged as 'Syees' in the Department of Animal Husbandry for a period of six months on contract, extendable by further period of six months. In few of the cases, appointment orders were issued in the year 1996, and in others, appointment orders were issued subsequent to the year 1996. Since thereafter the respondents are working on contract, extensions from time to time.
(3.) LEARNED Single Judge relied paragraph 53 of the judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors., reported in : (2006) 4 SCC 1, in which the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court declared that all appointments made dehors the Rules, to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. After discussing all the previous judgments of the Apex Court, it was held that the persons, who have not been appointed regularly, and are continuing as daily wagers, contractual employees, including temporary employees, can be considered for regularization, strictly in accordance with the Rules, for regularization made by the State Governments or their instrumentalities, as employers. In the same judgment, considering that many of such employees, who are duly qualified, on duly sanctioned vacant posts, and have been working for ten years, but not without the intervention of orders of Courts or tribunals, may be considered for regularization, as a one time measure. The Apex Court held in paragraph 53, as follows: - - "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the Courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one -time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the Courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. The State of Rajasthan considered the effect of the judgment and amended the rules under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India for regularization of all such employees, who have completed ten years of service as on 10.4.2006 (the dale on which the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi was delivered).;