Judgment:
R.C. Patnaik, J.
1. The 35 petitioners in this writ application who were appointed as Village Agricultural Workers by the Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology have assailed the decision of the opposite parties reverting them to their status quo ante' by Annexure-1 dated 10-7-1987.
2. The petitioners and four others who were working as literate bearers (casual labourers) were appointed in 1984 as Fieldman Demonstrator, 32 of them having been appointed on 20-7-1984 and the rest on 30-10-1984. They were receiving consolidated pay of Rs. 300/-per month. They were allowed to undergo Fieldman Demonstrator training and took the examination held in 1986. On passing the said examination, they were appointed as Village Agricultural Workers, vide Annexure-3 dated 31-7-1986 in the scale of pay of Rs. 840-1240/-. Order of reversion as per Annexure-1, referred to above, was passed before they could complete one year of service. 1 he petitioners have annexed their order of appointment as Fieldman Demonstrator on training as per Annexures-2(a) and 2(b). Notice having been issued to the ' opposite parties, return was submitted by them wherein it is alleged that appointment of the petitioners and others as Fieldman Demonstrators and later on as Village Agricultural Workers was in contravention of the provions contained in the Orissa Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act (Act 38 of 1975). The instruction of the Vice-Chancellor that names should not be called for from the Employment Exchange and appointment should be made from amongs the literate casual workers working under the University was superseded by the Board of Management which took a decision in that behalf in its meeting dated 10-7-1987. The decision has been appended as Annexure-5. There- fore, the gist of the case of the opposite parties is that the appointment is bad for not submitting a requisition to the Employment Exchange seeking names of eligible persons for appointment and for failure to reserve posts for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
3. The petitioners have filed the memorandum prepared by the office relating to the appointment of the petitioners and others as Fieldman Demonstrators and Village Agricultural Workers which was placed before the Board of Management, The memorandum traces the appointment of Fieldman Demonstrators (for short 'F. M. D.') and Village Agricultural Workers (for short 'V. A. W ') since the year 1978-79. It is discerned there- from that a committee was set up in the year 1980 for drafting rules for recruitment and reguhrisation of F. M. Ds. The Academic Council approved the qualification, syllabus and principles for regularisatian. It was also decided that examination should be held for recruitment once in a year. The Board of Management approved the recommendation and decided that the candidate should be a matriculate or should have passed an examination equivalent to the matriculation examination while candidates having previous experience of working in the University would be given preference to outsiders. in 1982, 27 M. M. Ds. were recruited. in 1984, a batch of M. M. Ds. were recruited on a consolidated pay of Rs. 300/- from amongst the casual labourers working in the University. They had served the University for 4 to 5 years as literate labourers. Requisition had been sent to the Employment Exchange and names of suitable candidates were received. But a committee consisting of the Deans, the Registrar and the Vice-Chancellor decided that requisition should not be sent to the Employment Exchange as preference was to be given to experienced literate casual labourers to assist the scientists in various experiments. Following the said guideline, 37 F. M. Ds. were appointed in 1984 from amongst the casual labourers working in the University. They took the examination held in February, 1986 and on passing the same were appointed as V. A. Ws. in the scale of pay of Rs. 840-1240/-.
4. The Board of Management did not approve the decision not to submit requisition to the Employment Exchange and the failure to reserve posts for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and directed reversion of the petitioners to their status quo ante.
5. Dr. Dash, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has urged that it was not obligatory to submit requisition to the Employment Exchange. Appointment of outsiders not forwarded by Employment Exchange was not bad and illegal and the appointment to the post of V. A. W. being the initial appointment, reversion to status quo ante was a misnomer.
Mr. Das, the learned counsel for the University, has urged that the appointment of the petitioners and others was held to be illegal and improper leaving regard to the provisions contained in Orissa Act 38 of 1975, referred to above, and the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959.
6. After hearing the counsel at length and perusing the pleadings and especially the memorandum prepared for the meeting of the Board of Management which took the impugned decision, we are of the view that the decision should have been taken from the proper perspective and against the background. The petitioners and other like them were working in the University for several years as casual labourers. In course of their work, they acquired special tehnical experience; They were matriculate workers. They were assisting the reserchers- and' scientists- in the various farms etc. They ware recruited for undergoing. E M.D. training, with a view to ultimate absorption in the post of F. M. D. 1 hey were later or renomen- efa'ured as V. A. W. They underwent the training, for one year, passed the examination and were appointed as V. A. Ws. in 1986. The Board of Management was aware of their initial recruitment and the fact that they underwent the training for one year, took the examination and later on appointed as V. A. Ws. The Board of Management a allowed almost three years to roll by and took the impugned decision for the reasons stated, in course of their employment, many of the petitioners might have become over-aged for appointment ire service under the Government, semi-Government or statutory bodies, their case is not worse than the nominal muster roll workers whose absorption has- been directed by Courts including the apex Court for, otherwise, that would amount to gross, exploitation. Irs . Union of India v. N. Hargopal and others, AIR 1987 SC 1227, the Supreme Court has observed that there is no provision in the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959, referred to above, which obliges the employer to make appointments through the agency of the employment exchanges though, of course, the employment exchanges should have been notified when the vacancies occurred. The other point canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners equally has substance. The petitioners underwent the training for one year and on successful completion of the training were appointed as V. A. Ws. Their reversion to status quo ante would be reversion to the stage prior to their appointment as V. A. Ws. that is to say, to the stage of training. That could not have been intended because they had undergone the training and on successful completion of the transng takers the examination and passed the same. Besides that was not a post held by them. Recruitment as V. A. W. being the initial recruitment, they could not be reverted to a lower post Reliance has been placed by Dr. Dash on Hussain Sasansaheb Kaladgi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1987 SC 1627. The submission of the counsel is irrefutable for before their appointment as V.A, Ws., the petitioners were not holding any post, they underwent training for one year. Before that they were F. M. Ds. which posts were upgraded to the rank of V.. A Ws. by resolution of the Board of Management dated 26-8-1985 following upgradation of the post of F. M. D. to V, A. W. by the Government. Hence, the posts of F. M. D. and V. A. W. were equivalent posts after 198S. If the
Board of Management by reversion to the post of F. M. D, carrying consolidated pay of Rs. 300/- per month, the same cannot be countenanced in the face of series of decisions of this Court and of the Supreme, Court holding that persons doing the same type of work should be given the same remuneration, the same pay as their counterparts. Hence, even if the University reverted them to the posts of F. M. Ds. they would be entiiled.. to the scale of pay of Rs. 840-1240/-, the scale prescribed for the post as upgraded.
7. We are, therefore, of the view that the Board of Management did not keep all these in view while taking the impugned decision. We have stressed one aspect and we reiterated that it would be unfair and improper to turn out employees in the lowest rung after they have rendered service for a decade. Avenues should be found for them, hurdles are to be got over for them because they are not merely 37 persons, they are 37 families involving hundreds of persons and the hardship that would be caused to hundreds of people is to be seen. The quota may be satisfied by regulating recruitment in future. We, therefore, quash the decision dated 10-7-193/ of the Board of Management in relation to the petitioners and the impugned order as per Annexure-1. The writ application is accordingly allowed but in the circumstances there would be no order for costs.
V. Gopalaswamy, J.
I agree.