TV
The Orissa High Court has ruled that the date from which regularization is to be granted to an employee is a matter to be decided by the employer keeping in view several factors.
As per a report in Live Law, the bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra held that it depends on the nature of the work, the number of posts lying vacant, the financial condition of the employer, the additional financial burden caused, the suitability of the workmen for the job, the manner and reason for which the initial appointments were made.
The hearing has been made pertaining to the employment status of a petitioner, who was appointed as a science teacher (CBZ) on a contractual basis at the Subarnarekha Irrigation Project Composite High School which is managed by the Water Resources Department. The school was set up to educate the children of project employees. It was recognized by the Education Department and the Board of Secondary Education.
The petitioner was initially appointed on a contractual basis on July 29, 1995. He continued in the position despite efforts for regular recruitment. Subsequently, he sought regularization of his service and benefits equivalent to a regular Trained Graduate Teacher. Despite initial reluctance by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal to issue directives for regularization due to the school’s potential closure, a subsequent court judgment directed authorities to consider regularization, considering the petitioner's ten-plus years of service.
Consequently, the department granted the petitioner the regular pay scale from August 2, 2005, modified to January 31, 2002. The Petitioner approached the Orissa High Court. He demanded regularization from the date of his initial appointment, July 29, 1995, arguing that the posts were duly sanctioned, and his appointment on a contractual basis was illegal.
Observation by Orissa High Court
The High Court observed that the engagement of the petitioner as a science teacher was on a contractual basis without undergoing any formal selection process. It also observed that the petitioner’s appointment did not follow a proper recruitment procedure, and there was no evidence to suggest that the petitioner was selected through a formal process. Despite a subsequent request by the department to the Collector to sponsor suitable candidates selected by the selection committee for the vacant posts, the petitioner’s engagement on contractual terms lacked procedural regularity.
The Court held that adherence to due recruitment processes is a fundamental aspect of lawful appointments. It states unequivocally that the law does not sanction the direct appointment of individuals to sanctioned posts without undergoing appropriate recruitment procedures. Though the petitioner’s appointment initially lacked legal compliance, the Court acknowledged that the authorities, in compliance with a previous court directive, have since regularized the petitioner’s services, effective from the date of the Tribunal’s order.
The Court further held that the petitioner’s plea for regularization from the date of his initial appointment lacked merit. It ordered that the date from which regularization is to be granted is a matter to be decided by the employer keeping in view several factors such as the nature of the work, the number of posts lying vacant, the financial condition of the employer, the additional financial burden caused, the suitability of the workmen for the job, the manner and reason for which the initial appointments were made.
