Petitioner, an attender engaged since 1982, sought regularization of service after five years. Court held that appointment must be against a vacancy borne on the cadre following prescribed procedure, per Supreme Court precedents. Petitioner failed to plead these facts.
None granted. Writ petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6082 of 2001
ORDER:
The petitioner states that he was engaged as an Attender on daily wage basis in the year 1982 by the Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University – 1st respondent. Six years thereafter, he said to have been transferred and required to work in the office of the Director of Evaluation – 2nd respondent, on a consolidated salary of Rs.1,275/- per month. He seeks a direction to the respondents to regularize the service since he has completed 5 years of service. He has placed reliance upon an order, dated 18-01-2001, passed by this Court in W.P.No.16847 of 1997.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
3. The only ground pleaded by the petitioner for seeking relief of regularization is that he has completed 5 years of service. It is not stated that the appointment of the petitioner was against any vacancy borne on the cadre or that the procedure prescribed for filling the post was followed, when he was engaged. Another aspect of the matter is that it is only when a person is appointed on examination of the case along with others that the appointment can be said regular. It is true that in some of the cases, this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that a person who has been on the roles of an organization for a considerable length of time must be absorbed to the regular service. However, the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors.
v. Umadevi & Ors .[1] , held that whatever be the length of service, an employee cannot be regularized in an organization, unless his appointment was against an vacancy borne-out in the cadre and prescribed procedure was followed for making the appointment. The
petitioner did not plead much less establish those facts.
4. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J
July 19, 2012. KTL
[1] AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1806
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an attender on daily wage is entitled to regularization of service after completing five years without appointment against a regularly bearing vacant post
Whether the requirement of appointment against a vacancy borne in the cadre and prescribed procedure is mandatory for regularization regardless of length of service
Whether the petitioner established that his appointment was against a vacancy borne on the cadre and that the prescribed procedure was followed
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors.Applied¶5
AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1806 · Who else cites this
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University
Director of Evaluation
L. NARASIMHA REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
