- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) IN all above writ petitions the Union of India through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Communication and other officers are challenging the validity of the common judgment dated 28.3.2014 rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the CAT for short) whereby the CAT issued certain directions to consider the cases of each of the applicants for regularization independently on its own facts as per the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, reported in : 2006(4) SCC 1 and in case of State of Karnataka and Ors. v. M.L. Kesari and Ors. reported in : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner -department submitted that the judgment impugned is erroneous because all the applicants were engaged purely on temporary basis without following the process of law of recruitment on the post of GDS BPM in the newly opened branch post office. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the efforts were made by the petitioner department on number of occasions for conducting the due process of selection for appointing the GDS BPM but due to one and another reason, the selection process could not be completed, therefore, the respondents continued for good long time. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that appointments were made on the post of GDS BPM without following the process of law, therefore, there was no question of claiming regularization by the respondent -employees. In the grounds, it is specifically pleaded by the petitioner Union of India that in cases of Uma Devi and M.L. Kesari (supra) directions were issued for regularization of those employees who were daily wagers, appointed on part time, full time basis and ad hoc employees only whereas all the respondents are working on the post of ED agent and the services of ED agents are governed by a separate rules which is ED Agent Rules, 1964, which were repealed by the GDS Rules, 2001 and the Rules of 2001 are also recently repealed and services of GDS BPM are now governed by the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, therefore, in view of the above facts, directions issued by the CAT to consider the case of the respondents employees for regularization are not sustainable in law. Therefore, these writ petitions may be allowed the impugned order dated 28.2.2014 may kindly be quashed. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we have perused the para No. 53 of the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Uma Devi's case, which reads as under: - - "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa (supra), R.N. Nanjundappa (supra),and B.N. Nagarajan (supra), and referred to in paragraph 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 courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization 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 above referred 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 regularize 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 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 regularization, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by -passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme." ;