JUDGMENT
Balia, J.
(1). Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2). This petition has been filed in 1993 by five persons working under the Directorate of Extension Educational the Printing Press of respondent No.1 Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner.
(3). The undisputed facts which emerge from the material placed before the Court and the pleadings of the parties are that the petitioner No.1 Om Prakash is working as Binder with the respondent since 1984. The petitioner No.2 Devital Nagda is working as Printer since 1981. The petitioner No.3 Satyanarayan is working as Compositor since 1983. The petitioner No.4 Munnilal is working as Compositor since 1986 and Lal Chand is also working as Compositor since 1986. The grievance of the petitioners is that all the persons named in Annexure-1 totaling No.7 including the petitioners are working continuously on different posts at the Printing Press at per hour wages and notwithstanding there being permanent posts they are not being considered for regularisation or permanent appointment which affects their fundamental rights under Article 14 of being treated fairly by the respondent which is a State agency and Article 21 affecting their right to life which includes right to dignified living, free from exploitation.
(4). The facts about long term working with effect from the respective dates on respective posts under the Directorate or Extension is not disputed. What has been pleaded by the respondents is that since initially activity of press was taken for the
purpose of carrying out the printing material on no profit, no loss basis as self supporting project no permanent employment was envisaged. These persons were employed on contract basis in which wages were paid on the basis of per hour and this being the position the petitioners have no claim to seek regularisation or permanent appointment but they are free to compete in open market in the competition against the posts which have been created in 1990 and take their chances.
(5). This assurance given in the reply has also not been fulfilled. Until now no process of direct recruitment has been initiated at all because the Slate Govt. has not finally issued directions for filling posts.
(6). However another development to which reference has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners has taken place that rightly, though belatedly, a Scheme for the purpose of regularising the services of the employees, who are working for long, was notified by the respondent University by appointing three Screening Committee by order dt. 14th March, 2000, for the purpose of considering regularisation of services. In pursuance of that scheme some of the petitioners were called for screening by notice dt. 4/5 August, 2000. But it has remained dead letter, as nothing has turned out positively, so far by way of regularisalion of services. These facts are not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents.
(7). In the undisputed scenario noticed above, to the Court it appears, that it is a clear case of exploitation and practicing unfair labour practice by the respondent University, which undoubtedly is a Stale Agency to the detriment of the fundamental rights guaranteed to its citizens under the Constitution as freedom against arbitrariness and exploitation to be treated fairly by the State including all instrumentalities of State. It is true that no one has vested right to be appointed without ordinarily there being a participatory process by providing equal opportunity of employment in terms of Article 16 but it is equally true that if State Agency do act in violation of its duty to act fairly and without recruiting their requisite hands through proper procedure and decides to employ Ihe workman on casual or adhoc basis’ on broad plea of financial constraints, for fairly long spell and then denying them the fair treatment in the matter of offering a fair condition of employment and by raising the plea of seeking employment through open market competition which itself has not chosen to resort to results in denial to its workmen an exploitation free employment.
(8). In the totalily of circumstances we find that whether it is not a case of seeking employment through back-door entry, but it is a case of denying proper slatus to its workmen who have been continuously employed by the respondents against permanent nature of work, without giving them benefits of status of permanent employees and amounts to unfair labour practice of exploitation.
(9). In this connection it may not be out of place to draw attention to the provisions enacted by the Parliament in Industrial Dispuies Act in Its object to provide protection against exploitation and unfair labour practices. An ‘unfair labour practice has been defined u/S. 2(a) of that Act as such practices as specified in the 5th Schedule appended to Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Vth Schedule which deals with unfair labour practice lists at item No. 10 it to be an unfair labour practice:
“To employ workmen as ‘badlis’, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen.”
(10). This provision which gives a clue to the statutory policy in executing the directive policy of the Stale that while employing workmen as badlis, casual or temporaries for temporary needs by itself is not prohibited, but their exploitation through continuing them for long in the status of badlis, casuals or temporary has been included in the list of unfair labour practice as it amounls to denying the status of permanency and benefits flowing therefrom while permanent nature of work exists, the requirement to employ them is admitted, yet not employing them on permanent
basis results in denying them fruits of emoluments and other benefits which are made available to a permanent employee. In other words notwithstand there being permanent nature of work and need to employ such persons, continue to employ person, lesser emoluments can only be attributed to desire of the employers to adopt such policy with object to deprive the employees of privileges of permanent employment.
(11). The principles underlying the State policy manifested in legislation provides a guideline in adjuding whether the said inaction in the matter of refusing to offer employment on permanent basis even after long duration of continued employment on ad hoc/temporary/casual basis amounts to failure in its duly to ac! fairly in the matter of dealing with persons employed by the State and its instrumentalities. Article 16 which is only one of the special to right of equality of treatment and freedom from arbitrariness in the matter of being dealt with by the Stale under Article 14 does not prohibit extending justice to such persons.
(12). In this connection reference may be made to the decision of Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh (1), while deprecating the practice of continued ad hoc appointment and also reiterating that there is no vested right to seek regularisation and cautioned against continued ad hoc employment, yet laid down that in appropriate cases it may be demand of justice and fair play that employment of such long continued employment is regularised either by way of framing regular scheme or in some other way to extent benefit of regular service to such deprived employees. The principle in this connection was summed up by the Court as under:
“if for any reason, an ad hoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must consider his case for regularisation provided he is eligible and qualified according to rules and his service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the State.”
(13). The Court also accepted that in the ordinary course of human conduct where the casual or temporary employment continues for a fairly long spell-say two or three years-a presumption may arise that there is regular need for his services. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the authority concerned to examine the feasibility of his regularisntion. While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with empathy for the person…,Security of tenure is necessary for an employee to give his best to the job. With this the Court commended the efforts made by Haryana Govl. in carrying out a Scheme for phased regularisation of its ad hoc and temporary employees in various manifestations.
(14). If on the anvil of the aforesaid facts of the present case are tested, it is apparent that all the petitioners at the time of filing of the petition were already in the employment with the respondent University for more than seven years and have continued to be in employment in same position even now, as stated by both the learned counsel. Thus employment of the petitioners have continued for the period of 12 to 20 years without there being any status of permanency attached to them. The only embargo with the creation of post was against new recruitment until finally approved by the State Govt. Yet there was no prohibition on continued employment of the petitioners who were already employees for long. By creation of posts it was accepted by the employer the existence of permanent nature of work. Notwithstanding creation of posts in 1991, no appointment has been made to fill the post through regular recruitment where the petitioners could get a chance to seek regular appointment. In these circumstances considering their cases for regularisation as a matter of policy by appointing Screening Committee in March, 2000 and in pursuance of which of the petitioner were in fact invited for screening and were screened, was only in consonance with principle laid down in Piara Singh’s case, for which conditions were pre-eminently ripe and demanding yet said exercise has also not been completed and the fate of petitioners has been left hanging.
(15). In these circumstances it is only appropriate to issue directions to the respondents that in terms of its order dt. 14th March, 2000 the Screening Committee must consider case of each of such employees at the Printing Press in the Directorate of Extension Education including the petitioners and consider their cases for regularisation on the permanent post which have not been filed since creation of such posts in 1991 w.e.f. from that dale and on finding them suitable regularise their services with effect from dale of creation of posts pay-scales applicable to the post and this should be carried out within three months from today. It is further directed until the above exercise is concluded the petitioners are paid their wages, in regular pay- scale applicable to post, in any case not below their current emoluments.
(16). Accordingly, this petition is allowed with no order as to costs.