Academic Arrangement Employees Can’t Claim Regularisation Cat Judgement
Yesterday The Cat bench srinagar dismissed the 92 Petitions of employees Working as lecturer in the Higher education department whom the hon,ble High court has given status quo These petitions were filled against the service provision act 2010. The cat dismissed their claim for Regularisation the employees working on academic Arrangement in any department Can’t claim Regularisation the part of the judgement you can read related to service provision act mentioned in the final judgement passed by the Hon,ble cat bench Srinagar
<l(i) J&K Civil Service (Special Provision) Act, 2010 : J&K Civil Service (Special Provision) Act, 2010 has been enacted by the State legislature especially with an object to provide regularization to the employees appointed on ad hoc, contractual and consolidated basis against clear vacancies. It is clearly stated in the objects and reasons for enacting the said Act. Section 3 of the Act provides that a person who has been appointed on ad hoc, contractual and consolidated basis against the clear vacancy is entitled for the regularization. It is further provided that his regularization will be subject to satisfying the conditions laid down under Section 5 of the Act. Section 3 further provides that the benefit of regularization will not be extended to the employees/persons who are appointed under – (a) (b) (c) (d) (ii) Section 3(a), persons appointed on contract basis in the personal staff of the Minister, Section 3(b), persons appointed on tenure basis in a project and scheme and/or persons appointed on academic arrangement basis for a fixed term under the Government, Section 3(c), persons appointed in the autonomous bodies/PSUs and Section 3(d), persons appointed on part time and seasonable basis. It is clear from the above details that the Act of 2010 has created two groups of employees as follows : (A) Persons/employees appointed under the government on ad hoc, contractual ad consolidated pay basis against a clear vacancies under Section 3 of the Act; and (B) Persons/employees not appointed against a clear vacancy but appointed under Clause (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Section 3 of the Act. (iii) Applicants were appointed on academic arrangement basis and are covered by Section 3(b) of the Act which denies the benefit of regularization in service because their appointment is for a fixed term and not against clear vacancy. (iv) Section 3 and 3(b) of the Act constitute two classes of employees namely (1) employees appointed on ad hoc, contractual and consolidated basis against <span;>a clear vacancy and (2) employees appointed on academic arrangement basis for a fixed term not against a clear vacancy. (v) Basically the element of appointment against clear vacancy separates the two classes of employees from each other. Three categories of employees in the first group are initially appointed against clear vacancy whereas all the four categories of employees of the second group, element of appointment against clear vacancy is missing. As such the benefit of regularization has been denied to them. This is a valid, permissible legislative classification. (vi) Applicants have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 3(b) of the Act on the ground that applicants who are appointed on academic arrangement basis for a fixed term have been denied the benefit of regularization whereas the benefit of regularization has been extended to another set of employees who were appointed on ad hoc, contractual and consolidated basis. The learned counsels for the applicants submitted that the said grouping/classification is not a valid classification and therefore contrary to the right of equality as guaranteed by Article 14 of the constitution. (V) (i) Application of twin tests to the legislation in question : It is a settled principle of law that for a valid permissible legislative classification the twin tests laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of West Bengal –vs- Anwar Ali Sarkar [1952 (1) SCC 1; 1952 SCR 284] has to be fulfilled. Those twin tests are as follows : 1. The classification must be founded on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out from the group. <span;><span;>. The differentia must have a rational relation/nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. (ii) A classification of employees for the purpose of extending the benefit of regularization to one group of employees who have been appointed against a clear vacancy and secondly those who have not been appointed against a clear vacancy is a valid and permissible classification under Article 14 of the Constitution. The object and reasons of the Act clearly states that the Act has been enacted with an object to extend the benefit of regularization to the employees appointed against clear vacancies and benefit of regularization had not been extended to another group of employees who have not been appointed against clear vacancies. It is a reasonable and valid permissible classification under Article 14. This classification is based on intelligible differentia and that differentia has a rational nexus with the object of the Act to be achieved. Differentia between two classes of employees is appointment against clear vacancy and the object sought to be achieved by the Act i.e. to extend the benefit of regularization to those employees who have been appointed against clear vacancies. In this way the Act/legislation in question satisfied the twin tests laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for a valid classification on the basis of which constitutional validity is to be judged. Applying the twin tests laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Section 3(b) of the Act qualifies both the tests/requirements of a valid classification. Hence the same is constitutionally valid and intra vires. Consequently, the contention of the applicants that classification is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 is without any substance, hence rejected.
CONCLUSION AND DECISION OF CAT BENCH SRINAGAR : J&K Civil Service (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 has been enacted with an object to provide regularization to the ad hoc, contractual and consolidated basis employees against clear vacancies. The Act is a conscious policy decision of the State legislature. It makes clear in its statement of object and reasons that the Act has been passed to provide for regularization of the employees appointed on ad hoc, contractual and consolidated basis against clear vacancies. Section 3 of the Act confers and extends this right to the entitled employees subject to satisfying the requirements/conditions mentioned in Section 5 of the Act. Section 3(b) of the Act is exception to Section 3. Section 3(b) specifically excludes employees appointed on academic arrangement basis for a fixed term. Employees/persons appointed under section 3 read with Section 5 and employees/persons appointed under Section 3(b) are two separate classes of employees. Basically, appointment against clear vacancies and appointment not against clear vacancies differentiates/separates the two groups of employees. Section 3(b) is not violative of Article 14 of the constitution. The applicants are not entitled for benefit of regularization rather they have been specifically denied such benefit by Section 3(b) of the Act being a separate class altogether. Section 3(b) of the Act is constitutionally valid and intra vires. All TAs and OAs are dismissed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. No order as to costs.
