Chronic Vacancies And Essential Service Needs Justify Regularization Of Contract Employees Despite Article 320: Madras HC
Pranav Kumar
6 Nov 2024 4:33 PM IST
Madras High Court: A Division Bench of Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice G. Arul Murugan upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) order directing the regularization of contract Veterinary Assistant Surgeons who had served in Puducherry for nearly two decades. Despite objections from UPSC regarding Article 320 requirements, the Court found that the unique circumstances—including chronic vacancies and essential service requirements—justified regularization. The Court distinguished this case from the Umadevi judgment, noting that the appointments were not “backdoor” entries but were based on sanctioned posts and urgent needs.
Background
The petition involved the Union Territory of Puducherry and concerned an appeal against an order by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Madras Bench. The respondents, who were engaged as Veterinary Assistant Surgeons on a contractual basis since 2005, sought regularization of their employment. Their appointments were periodically renewed, and they had continued in service for nearly two decades. The petitioners, Union of India and its officials, contended that the respondents' engagement was temporary and did not establish a right to permanent employment.
The respondents pointed to the lack of significant distinction between their duties and those of regular appointees, noting their work in clinics, labs, and minor veterinary dispensaries across the Union Territory. They argued that their services met the urgent needs of Puducherry's veterinary health sector. Additionally, the sanctioned posts for Veterinary Assistant Surgeons were not entirely filled, leaving the department dependent on contract employees to maintain essential services.
Arguments
The petitioners, represented by Mr. Syed Mustafa, Special Government Pleader for Puducherry, argued that the respondents were only engaged on an ad-hoc basis to meet temporary staffing needs. They claimed that the appointment terms clearly indicated the contractual nature of employment, which did not entitle the respondents to claim regularization. The petitioners emphasized that Article 320 of the Indian Constitution mandates that appointments to Group 'A' posts, including Veterinary Assistant Surgeons, be conducted with the UPSC's concurrence. They asserted that the regularization of the respondents would contravene this constitutional provision.
Counsel for respondents, Mr. Karthik Rajan, countered by emphasizing that the respondents had been consistently engaged in duties akin to regular employees, often working under challenging conditions in rural dispensaries and clinics. The respondents argued that their contractual engagement resulted from the government's inability to fill essential posts despite a long-standing need, which had been officially recognized. They asserted that denying them regularization after such prolonged service would be unjust, especially given the essential nature of their duties.
Court's Reasoning
Firstly, the court noted that the respondents' appointments, while nominally contractual, had extended continuously for nearly two decades. Citing the CAT's findings, the court emphasized that the Union Territory's ongoing reliance on these veterinarians highlighted a de facto need that exceeded temporary requirements.
Secondly, the court addressed the petitioners' reliance on Article 320; it agreed that the Article's intent was to maintain transparency and accountability in public appointments. However, it distinguished this case, noting that the unique circumstances — particularly the chronic vacancy issue — justified the Union Territory's actions. The court underscored that the respondents' engagement was based on a transparent, merit-based process and did not involve any allegations of bias or impropriety. It was, at best, irregular but not illegal.
Thirdly, the court noted that the need for veterinary services in Puducherry had been explicitly acknowledged by both local and central authorities. Moreover, the respondents had been repeatedly re-engaged, which was a clear acknowledgment of their indispensability to the department. Fourthly, the court considered Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006), which limits the regularization of irregular appointees. The court found that the petitioners' reliance on Umadevi was misplaced, as the respondents' engagement was not “backdoor” or unauthorized but based on sanctioned posts and urgent needs. Thus, the court concluded that the CAT's order directing the regularization of the respondents was valid and dismissed the writ petition filed by the Union Territory. It directed the regularisation of respondents' services within eight weeks.
Decided on: 25-10-2024
Neutral Citation: 2024:MHC:3636
Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras
For Petitioners: Mr. Syed Mustafa, Special Government Pleader (Pondicherry)
For Respondents: Mr. Karthik Rajan (for R2 to R5), Mr. V. Chandrasekaran (for R6/UPSC)
