Long-Term Contract Employment Cannot Override Regular Recruitment Process; Bombay HC
Pranav Kumar
8 Nov 2024 1:00 PM IST
Bombay High Court: A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar directed the regularization of staff nurses employed on contract basis in the Union Territory of Daman and Diu. The court overturned the Central Administrative Tribunal's dismissal, ruling that the nurses, who were recruited through proper selection processes in accordance with the 1967 Service Rules, were entitled to regular appointment status despite being initially hired on contract.
Background
The petitioners, appointed as staff nurses in 2006, were recruited after a selection process conducted by a Departmental Selection Committee. Despite continuous service, they were hired on short-term contracts, renewable every six months, and were not being given permanent status. They argued that the process followed by the Directorate of Medical and Health Services in Daman and Diu aligned with regular recruitment standards under the 1967 Service Rules, and thus they should have been granted regular status. However, their applications to the CAT for recognition as regular appointees were dismissed. In response, they filed a writ petition, arguing that the failure to regularize them was arbitrary and a breach of fair labor practices.
Arguments
Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Ramesh Ramamurthy, contended that their appointments were made through an open selection process with advertisements and interviews, fulfilling the criteria under the Service Rules, 1967. He argued that this indicated an intent for permanent placement, as these practices were typically associated with regular recruitment. He pointed to continuous employment and argued that denying them regular status was arbitrary and punitive. He further asserted that the CAT's reliance on contractual terminology in their appointment letters was misplaced, as it overlooked the actual recruitment procedures and the fact that the recruitment rules for regular appointments were followed.
Represented by Shri Harsh P. Dedhia, the respondents argued that the employment terms clearly stated that the appointments were on a contractual basis. Dedhia emphasized that the Service Rules allowed for contractual hiring under certain conditions and that the Directorate was not bound to confer regular status merely due to extended tenure. The respondents also highlighted that the Directorate had specifically advertised for contract-based employment in the notices issued for the staff nurse positions.
Court's Reasoning
Firstly, the court found that the petitioners met the required qualifications and age criteria under the 1967 Service Rules and were selected following a valid recruitment process. It noted that the Service Rules did not mandate specific terms for contract-based hiring - implying that the petitioners' initial contractual designation was a circumstantial choice. Secondly, the court observed that the Departmental Selection Committee was constituted with relevant senior officials, including the Special Secretary and Medical Superintendent, to oversee the selection. The court found this to suggest that the selection was carried out in a manner consistent with regular appointments.
Thirdly, the court noted that the petitioners' uninterrupted work for over 15 years implied a regular employment relationship. It held that forcing contract renewals in such cases without providing regular status was contrary to principles of fair labor practice. Following State of Punjab v. Labour Court, Jullundur (AIR 1979 SC 1981), the court emphasised that to decipher whether the appointment was made on regular basis, one must analyse the process of appointment. The court noted that all the regular processes were followed in this case. Consequently, it concluded that merely because initial appointment order described the appointment to be on contract basis, it will not render the appointment irregular.
Finally, the court considered the administrative practices regarding the creation of new posts and concluded that the petitioners' roles aligned with sanctioned posts. It noted that although some appointments were technically made against posts that had yet to be formally created, subsequent developments justified the regularization of these positions. Thus, the court allowed the writ petition, and ordered regularisation.
Decided on: 25-10-2024
Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:42704-DB
Case Name: Rakesh Lal Meena and Others v. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Others
Counsel for the Petitioners: Shri Ramesh Ramamurthy with Shri Saikumar Ramamurthy
Counsel for the Respondents: Shri Harsh P. Dedhia with Ms. Amisha Salvi
