ORDER
Mukesh Kumar Gupta, Member (J)
1. None appears for the applicant even on second call.
2. On the last date of hearing i.e. 24.5.2006, learned Counsel for applicant had sought adjournment to study the latest judgment rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi . In these circumstances, invoking Rule 15(1) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, I proceeded to decide the matter on merits after perusal of pleadings, material placed on record and hearing learned Counsel for respondents.
3. By the present OA, validity of orders dated 16.5.2005, 04.7.2005 and 22.7.2005 vide which applications were invited for the post of Theatre Orderly / Nursing Attendants for regular employment have been challenged. It is the contention of applicants that since they have been working in said capacity on casual basis for the last 8/10 years they are entitled to be regularized, and, therefore respondents be directed to absorb them keeping in view their seniority without inviting names from the Employment Exchange with all consequential benefits. It is further contended that the applicants have been working regularly since their initial appointment continuously without any break to satisfaction of the concerned authorities. They were subject to medical examination before such appointment had been carried.
4. On an earlier occasion, they approached this Tribunal vide OA No. 228/2005 seeking regularization of their services as well as challenging the recruitment rules, which was dismissed vide order dated 01.2.2005 in limine. After dismissal of the aforesaid OA they made further representation dated 30.5.2005, which has neither been denied nor replied. They have acquired rights against ten vacancies of Theatre Orderly / Nursing Attendants, which are sought to be filled by appointment / recruitment from outsiders / freshers and juniors to them.
5. The respondents resisted the claim laid filing detailed affidavit stating that in the year 1996 they had recruited forty casual labourers, twenty each for the categories A and B through the Employment Exchange for a period of 89 days initially but the same continued with usual breaks for a few months till these posts were filled on regular basis. Category A includes cleaning, sweeping & washing of floors, disposal of pathogenic & other waste material, cleaning of other premises, while Category B includes all the jobs / work relating to Nursing care of patients in the hospital and any other work in the hospital. In the year 1997, the hospital had a total of 81 daily wagers, out of which 50 have already been regularized and as on date 31 are left. These 31 daily wagers, which include the applicants herein, would also be considered for regular appointment in coming future against available vacancies on fulfilling eligibility conditions, and if they are found suitable by the Selection Committee along with the nominees of the Employment Exchange, they would be appointed in accordance with rules. Their contention that they should be regularized without being subjected to the regular selection process, as required by statutory rules is untenable and unjustified, contended Ms. Meenu Mainee, learned Counsel for respondents.
6. At this stage, learned Counsel for applicant entered the Court room and sought leave of the Court to argue the matter. He contends that applicants were appointed in accordance with rules and the latest judgment of Constitution Bench in Uma Devis case (supra) supports their claim in its entirety. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondents vehemently relying upon the same and very judgment contended that applicants being back door enterers, cannot be regularized, dehorse the rules and in breach of the mandate of said Constitution Bench judgment.
7. I have heard learned Counsel for both sides and perused the pleadings carefully. Since statement has been made by the respondents on instructions from the official present in Court that the applicants would be accorded necessary age relaxation to the extent they have worked with the respondents, while being considered for regular appointment as prescribed under the rules in vogue (page 27 of the OA), which prescribed that the post of Theatre Orderly as well as Nursing Attendants is to be filled by 100% direct recruitment from those, who possess passing medical standard and elementary knowledge of aid in case of Nursing Attendants and in case of Theatre Orderly with one more additional requirement of one year experience in the hospital work, the present OA can be disposed of with a direction to respondents to consider applicants along with nominees of the Employment Exchange for the said post of Theatre Orderly and if they are found fit by the Selection Committee, they will be appointed in accordance with rules. The contention raised by the applicants that their claim is covered by the said judgment of Uma Devi (supra), in my respectful view, is not tenable in as much as the applicants were initially appointed on casual basis for a period of 89 days, which engagement continued from time to time with usual breaks. This is so evident from page 24 of the OA, which is the requisition made to the concerned Employment Officer in the year 1996.
8. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, present OA is disposed of with direction to respondents to consider applicants along with other eligible candidates and accordingly regulate the selection process. Accordingly, OA is disposed of. No costs.