PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MAHENDER SINGH & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/11/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
ORDER
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.