Union of India & Ors Vs. Mahender
Singh & Ors [1996] INSC 1432 (18 November 1996)
K. Ramaswamy,
G.B. Pattanaik
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
Leave
granted.
We
have heard learned counsel on both side.
This
appeal by special leave arises against the order of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, New Delhi made on February 8, 1996 in OA No. 1105/95.
The
admitted position is that the respondents came to be engaged as drivers in
Intelligence Bureau, Headquarters, New Delhi from April 24,
1986 to October 5, 1988. They had filed the O.A. for regularisation
of their services The tribunal in the impugned order has directed to regularise
their serviced as stated hereunder:
"In
the present case, the experience of the applicants in more than 7 years. They
are, therefore, entitled in view of the ration of the above cited case to be
considered for regularisation in relaxation of their age and educational
qualifications. We accordingly, dispose of this application with the direction
to the respondents to consider the applicants for regularisation on the
availability of vacancies along with others after granting them necessary
educational and age relaxation ad to continue them in their present jobs,
subject to work being available, in preference to any other worker who may have
lesser experience than them of working with the respondents.
In
view of the settled legal position by this Court in State of Haryana vs. Piara
Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118] and plethora of precedents thereafter, the Tribunal
obviously is in error in directing regularisation of their services with effect
from the respective dates of their appointments, Instead, the appellants are
directed to regularise their services in accordance with the rules in the light
of the law laid down therein.
It is
contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the appellants have
relaxed the educational qualifications in respect of 15 persons named in the
rejoinder and, therefore, the respondents are also entitled to the same
benefit. the learned Solicitor General has placed before us the rules made b
the Government on February
4, 1988; Note (2) was
appended to Rule 2 (iii) which read as under:
"All
the persons working as Security Assistant (Motor Transport) Immediately before
coming into force of the Intelligence Bureau (Motor Transport Cadre)
Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 1988 shall be promoted enbloc as junior
Intelligence Officer Grade-II (Motor Transport) Irrespective of the number of
years of service rendered by them as Security Assistant (Motor Transport)
against the upgraded post of Security Assistant (Motor Transport) as Junior
Intelligence Officer, Gr. II (Motor Transport) as one time exception." It
is stated that the previous cadre to which the above persons came to be
appointed was abolished. As a consequence, all those persons working as
Security Assistant (Motor Transport) were en bloc regularised relaxing their
educational qualifications which is only 6th standard and, therefore, it has no
application to the case of the respondents. In view of the above position, we
do not find any hostile discrimination meted out to the respondents, as
contended by the learned counsel for the respondents.
The
appeal is accordingly allowed and the order in the O.A. Stands disposed of as
directed earlier. No costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
