Judgment:
ORAL ORDER
{As per Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.Lakshmana Reddy, Vice Chairman }
Heard Mr.B.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.P.Venkat Rao, learned standing counsel for the respondent.
2. This application is filed seeking for declaration that the inaction on the part of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the applicant in the post of Safaiwala or in any equivalent post on the basis of her seniority by considering her representations dated 13.09.2005 and 10.09.2007 and also challenging the action of the respondent in drawing the candidates from Employment Exchange without considering her case on par with her juniors as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for regularization in any suitable post on the basis of her seniority.
3. The relevant facts in brief are as follows :
The applicant is working as casual labourer in the respondents' organization since 1982 after she was duly employed as casual labourer through Employment Exchange. Since then she has been continuously working as casual labourer with the hope that her services would be regularised. She has been making requests to the authorities to consider her claim for regularization. While so, she came to know that the respondents made requisition to the Employment Exchange to sponsor candidates for the interview for the post of Safaiwala on 19.12.2005. The applicant submitted representations on 13.09.2005 and 10.09.2007 requesting the respondents to consider her case for appointment in the said vacancy as she belongs to BC category. In the interview one Sri Prabhakar and one Smt.Lakshmamma were called along with her. Sri Prabhakar was at Sl.No.5 whereas the applicant was at Sl.No.3. Sri Prabhakar and Smt.Lakshmamma who were juniors to her have been absorbed as regular employees ignoring the claim of the applicant. There was no response to her representations. Smt.Lakshmamma who is junior to her filed OA.984/2005 on the file of this Tribunal and when this Tribunal dismissed the OA and the said Smt.Lakshmamma approached the Hon ble High Court by way of filing W.P.No.22594/2006 and the Hon ble High Court directed the respondents to consider the case of Smt.Lakshmanna for appointment to the suitable post to be sanctioned or any vacant post in accordance with the law within a period of four weeks. In pursuance of the said orders the respondents have regularized the service of Smt.Lakshmamma and appointed her as Safaiwala on 09.10.2007. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is a vacancy and if that vacancy is filled up, the applicant will be put to hardship and therefore, a direction may be given to the respondents to consider her case for regularization in the existing vacancy or in the vacancies that may arise in future.
4. The respondents contested the application and filed reply stating that the applicant is only a casual labourer and she is not a Government servant and she cannot claim appointment and this Tribunal cannot entertain her claim and no fundamental or statutory right of the applicant has been violated and therefore the applicant cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Tribunal and hence this application is liable to be dismissed. The respondents pleaded that the applicant has been engaged as casual labourer in All India Radio from 1985 onwards and not from 1982 onwards as stated by her in the application. The applicant is referring the vacancies from 2005 for the post of Safaiwala for which the recruitment process has since been completed and the selected candidates joined the service in the year 2006. The said recruitment was a Special Recruitment Drive only for the backlog vacancies of SC/ST candidates. The applicant does not belong to either SC or ST and she belongs to BC community and as such she cannot compare with those selected candidates Sri Prabhakar and Smt.Lakshmamma as they belongs to SC community and therefore their services were regularized against the SC vacancy. The respondents pleaded that the question of seniority does not arise because none of the candidates including the applicant were granted temporary status. It is further pleaded that the existing vacancy referred to by the applicant was under Special Recruitment Drive which was meant for SC/ST candidates which was already filled up. There is no question of regularizing the services of the applicant as there was no further recruitment and as such no possibility of interview being held as there is a general All India ban on recruitment throughout the country and hence no schedule or future date for interview and hence the application is liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. The applicant filed rejoinder asserting that she has been working as casual labourer since 1982 and since 1985 onwards the applicant s name is marked as No.1 every year by the respondents’ authority and as the applicant is a casual employee she is empowered to file application before this Tribunal. There are service certificates issued by the respondents from the date of joining and that cannot be denied by the department and the applicant was called for interview every year by the Employment Exchange and was selected through Employment Exchange. The applicant completed nearly 27 years of service in the respondents’ department. Smt.Lakshmamma was not absorbed under the Special Recruitment Drive but her services were regularized as per the order of the Hon’ble High Court in WP.No.22594/2006. Sri Prabhakar is also junior to the applicant and his service was also regularized.
6. The point that arise for consideration in this application is whether the applicant is entitled for regularization and to what result ?
7. It is not disputed that the applicant has been working as casual labourer in the respondents organization since 1985 i.e. more than 23 years. It is also not disputed that Smt Lakshmamma is far junior to the applicant. It is not disputed that Sri Prabhakar was also engaged as casual labourer along with the applicant through Employment Exchange, whereas Lakshmamma was engaged as casual labourer. It is also not disputed that both Sri Prabhakar and Smt.Lakshmamma were absorbed. But according to the reply of the respondents they were absorbed under Special Recruitment Drive for filling up the SC/ST vacancies and as the applicant does not belong to SC/ST she could not be absorbed. But the applicant filed the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.22594/2006 and also the appointment order of Smt.Lakshmamma. Those documents clearly goes to show that the services of Smt.Lakshmamma were not regularized under Special Recruitment Drive for SC/ST vacancy. No document was filed to substantiate the contention made in the reply that Smt.Lakshmamma and Sri Prabhakar were absorbed by way of Special Recruitment Drive. In the absence of any document, we are unable to accept the contention of the respondents. Therefore, we consider that this is a fit case to direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for regularization as and when vacancies arise as she served as casual labourer for more than 23 years since prior to the engagement of Smt.Lakshmamma whose services are already regularized. Thus the point is found accordingly.
8. In the result the OA is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for regularization as and when vacancy arises in future and none others should be appointed as Safaiwala without considering the case of the applicant. There shall be no order as to costs.