P. Rajesh and Others vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited and Others

Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.—All these petitions are clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, as the questions of facts and law involved are the same.

W.P. Nos. 47587-47591/2012 and W.P. Nos. 47435-47448/2012 are filed by the contract Assistant Engineers. W.P. Nos. 47461-47498/2012 and 8713-8742/2013 are filed by the contract Junior Engineers. The petitioners have raised the challenge to the communication, dated 15.11.2012 issued by the Government to the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (''K.P.T.C.L.'' for short), rejecting the latter''s proposal for regularizing the services of the petitioners. They have also challenged the consequential endorsement, dated 19.11.2012 issued by the Government calling upon the K.P.T.C.L. to terminate the contractual appointments in question. The petitioners have sought the order forbearing the respondents from terminating the services of the petitioners and further for a direction to regularize and absorb their services retrospectively from the date of their appointment.

The facts of the case in brief are that the K.P.T.C.L. has been appointing the Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers on contract basis. The services of the contractual appointees of 2003, 2005 and 2006 batch were regularized. The present petitioners are of 2007 batch. They took part in the recruitment process by responding to the notification, dated 07.02.2007. The K.P.T.C.L. held the written examination and conducted the interview. Further, on satisfying itself that the petitioners are eligible and suitable for holding the posts in question, it appointed them on 13.09.2007. It is also to be noted that the KPTCL observed reservation and roster norms. On the regularization of the contractual appointments of the three earlier batches and on the same relief not being extended to them, some of the petitioners filed W.P. Nos. 21555-21605/2012 which came to be disposed of by this Court by its order, dated 04.10.2012 with a direction to the Government to take a decision in the matter within two months. The Government was directed to take a decision in the matter, as the K.P.T.C.L. had already passed a resolution for regularizing the services of the contract Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers of 2007 batch and for obtaining the approval of the Government for the same.

On the Government turning down the K.P.T.C.L.''s proposal for the regularization of the petitioners'' services, these petitions are filed.

Sri B.V. Acharya, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Vikas Rojipura appearing for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 47435-47448/2012 submits that the petitioners are appointed against the sanctioned posts in accordance with the constitutional scheme for the public appointments. He submits that the petitioners are not the back-door entrants. They have taken part in the regular recruitment process. He submits that the petitioners appeared for the written examination and for the interview conducted by the K.P.T.C.L. It is on the basis of their merit that they are selected for the posts in question. He submits that there is no infraction of any rule in the appointment of the petitioners. For all the practical purposes, they are the regular recruitees. As the K.P.T.C.L. has shown the nature of their appointment as on contract basis, they are facing the vicissitudes.

Sri Acharya submits that even the Government vide its letter, dated 14.02.2007 (Annexure-D in W.P. Nos. 47435-448/2012) has conveyed its approval for making the appointments of the Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers on permanent basis. He read out the following portion of the said communication:

"KPTCL and ESCOMs may consider the issue of recruiting A.Es. and J.Es. on permanent basis instead of contract basis if their services are required on permanent basis."

In view of the said approval granted at the pre-recruitment stage, the K.P.T.C.L. ought to have appointed the petitioners on permanent basis, so submits the learned Senior Counsel. His further submission on the approval aspect of the matter is that there was no need for the K.P.T.C.L. to seek the nod of the Government for regularizing the services of the petitioners. He submits that neither the Cadre and Recruitment Rules nor any other service regulations of K.P.T.C.L. prescribe the requirement of taking the approval for regularizing the services of the employees of K.P.T.C.L.

He submits that for regularizing the contractual appointments of 2003, 2005 and 2006 batches, no approval from the Government was ever sought; nor has the Government objected to regularizing the services of the contractual appointees of the said batches.

He submits that the Government has turned down the K.P.T.C.L.s proposal for the regularization of services mainly on the ground that the said regularization runs contrary to law declared by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, . He submits that such a perception is ill-founded, because the regularization of the services of the contractual appointees of the earlier batches was challenged in W.P. No. 7425/2007. This Court by its order, dated 20.05.2010 (Annexure-J in W.P. Nos. 47435-47448/2012) dismissed the writ petition holding inter alia that the resolution for regularization is in no way contrary to the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in UMA DEVI''s case (supra). He submits that the said orders of the learned Single Judge were challenged before the Division Bench and before the Hon''ble Apex Court but without any rate of success. He submits that the regularization of the services of the contractual appointees of 2005 and 2006 batches itself was after 10.04.2006 on which date the Hon''ble Supreme Court pronounced judgment in UMA DEVI''s case (supra). He further submits that their initial appointments (of 2005 and 2006 batch) on contract basis itself was on 06.07.2006 and 23.11.2006, that is long after the pronouncement of the order by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in UMA DEVI''s case (supra).

The learned Senior Counsel submits that in the impugned order there is no reference to the regularization of the similarly placed employees of the three batches. He submits that when the petitioners are appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme, the judgment in Uma Devi''s case does not come in the way of the regularization of their services. He relies on the Apex Court''s judgment in the case of Nihal Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, to advance his submission that when the petitioners'' appointments are neither illegal nor irregular and when they are appointed against the sanctioned posts, they are entitled to have their services regularized. Paragraph Nos. 23, 24 and 28 of the said judgment, read out by him are extracted hereinbelow:

"23. Even going by the principles laid down in Umadevi case, we are of the opinion that the State of Punjab cannot be heard to say that the appellants are not entitled to be absorbed into the services of the State on permanent basis as their appointments were purely temporary and not against any sanctioned posts created by the State.

In our opinion, the initial appointment of the appellants can never be categorized as an irregular appointment. The initial appointment of the appellants is made in accordance with the statutory procedure contemplated under the Act. The decision to resort to such a procedure was taken at the highest level of the State by conscious choice as already noticed by us.

The abovementioned process clearly indicates it is not a case where persons like the appellants were arbitrarily chosen to the exclusion of other eligible candidates. It required all able-bodied persons to be considered by the SSP who was charged with the responsibility of selecting suitable candidates."

Sri Vikas Rojipura, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 47435-47448/2012 read out paragraph Nos. 3 and 6 of the decision in Uma Devi''s case (supra). They are extracted hereinbelow:-

"3. A sovereign government, considering the economic situation in the country and the work to begot done, is not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on daily wages. Going by a law newly enacted, The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, the object is to give employment to at least one member of a family for hundred days in an year, on paying wages as fixed under that Act. But, a regular process of recruitment or appointment has to be resorted to, when regular vacancies in posts, at a particular point of time, are to be filled up and the filling up of those vacancies cannot be done in a haphazard manner or based on patronage or other considerations. Regular appointment must be the rule.

.................................

The power of a State as an employer is more limited than that of a private employer inasmuch as it is subjected to constitutional limitations and cannot be exercised arbitrarily (See Basu''s Shorter Constitution of India). Article 309 of the Constitution gives the Government the power to frame rules for the purpose of laying down the conditions of service and recruitment of persons to be appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or any of the States. That Article contemplates the drawing up of a procedure and rules to regulate the recruitment and regulate the service conditions of appointees appointed to public posts. It is well acknowledged that because of this, the entire process of recruitment for services is controlled by detailed procedure which specify the necessary qualifications, the mode of appointment etc. If rules have been made under Article 309 of the Constitution, then the Government can make appointments only in accordance with the rules. The State is meant to be a model employer. The Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 was enacted to ensure equal opportunity for employment seekers. Though this Act may not oblige an employer to employ only those persons who have been sponsored by employment exchanges, it places an obligation on the employer to notify the vacancies that may arise in the various departments and for filling up of those vacancies, based on a procedure. Normally, statutory rules are framed under the authority of law governing employment. It is recognized that no government order, notification or circular can be substituted for the statutory rules framed under the authority of law. This is because, following any other course could be disastrous inasmuch as it will deprive the security of tenure and the right of equality conferred on civil servants under the Constitutional scheme. It may even amount to negating the accepted service jurisprudence. Therefore, when statutory rules are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution which are exhaustive, the only fair means to adopt is to make appointments based on the rules so framed".

Based on the above-extracted portions of the Apex Court''s decision, it is the submission of Sri Vikas Rojipura that the regular appointment must be a rule when the sanctioned posts are indeed available. He submits that it is not known as to why the petitioners were not appointed on regular basis even when they are appointed against the sanctioned vacancies after holding the written test and viva-voce. He submits that the procedure followed for appointing the petitioners is not in violation of the constitutional scheme. Nobody is to be deprived of any opportunity to take part in the recruitment process. Even when the petitioners are selected based on their merit, which itself is determined by holding the competitive examination, they are made to suffer. Viewed in this perspective, the petitioners are the victims and not the beneficiaries of contractual appointments.

Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Reuben Jacob for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 47587-47591/2012 submits that the delay in the regularization of the services of the contractual appointees of 2007 batch is only on account of the pendency of the matter of regularization of the contractual appointments made in 2003, 2005 and 2006. He submits that it is the nomenclature ''contractual appointment'' which has created all the problems, though the petitioners are appointed in the same way as are the other employees of the KPTCL.

He submits that the KPTCL''s Service Rules and Regulations do not require the prior approval of the Government for regularizing the services of its employees. He submits that out of 338 contractual Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers, only 284 have stayed back in the service.

He sought to draw support from the Division Bench judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Sachin Ambadas Dawale and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Director of Technical Education, , wherein it is held that the contractual appointees cannot be deprived of the right of regular employment when their entry in the service is not illegal or through the back-door. Paragraph Nos. 19 and 22 of the said decision read out by him are as follows:

"19. One more fact that needs to be taken into consideration is that even according to the respondent - State there are more than 5000 teaching posts which are still vacant and the advertisement issued by the MPSC is only for 400 posts. It can, thus, be clearly seen that even after the candidates who would be selected through the selection process conducted by the MPSC are available, more than 4500 posts will be vacant. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioners'' absorption would in no way affect the candidates who would now be selected through the MPSC. It is, thus, clear that the petitioners'' continuation in service would not adversely affect the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 to the citizens. We are of the considered view that the respondent-State having extracted the work from the petitioners for years together, the petitioners cannot be deprived of the right of regular employment particularly when their entry can neither be termed as "illegal" nor "back door".

The respondents are directed to regularize the services of such of the petitioners and confer permanency on such petitioners who have completed three years'' service with technical breaks. The respondents shall absorb the petitioners within a period of six weeks. Needless to state that the petitioners who are in continuous employment till 15.10.2013 shall be continued in service as regular employees.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the petitioners shall be entitled to regular salary from 1st November, 2013 and would not be entitled to claim any monetary benefits for the past services rendered by them in spite of their regularization. Needless to state that since the petitioners'' services are regularized, they shall be entitled to the continuity in service for all other purposes except monetary purposes from the date of their first appointment."

Sri M.S. Bhagwat, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 47461-47498/2012 submits that the Government has already indicated its clearance to KPTCL to make the appointments on regular basis. He read out the following portion from the letter, dated 14.2.2007 (Annexure-F) issued by the Government to the KPTCL:

"(B) III) KPTCL and ESCOMs may consider the issue of recruiting AE ''s and JE ''s on permanent basis instead of contract basis if their services are required on permanent basis."

Sri Bhagwat also brings to my notice the resolution passed by the Board of KPTCL on 29.12.2010 (Annexure-V). The relevant portion reads as follows:

"Further, based on approval from Government of Karnataka, the above Engineers have been recruited duly following all the procedures and reservation policies of government Retention of such experienced engineers would become difficult if they are not considered for regularization.

......................

RESOLVED that the proposal to regularize the services of Contract Assistant Engineers and Contract Junior Engineers working in KPTCL and ESCOMs be and is hereby recommended to Government for necessary approval

FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director (Admin and HR), KPTCL be and is hereby authorized to address GoK accordingly."

He submits that the Cabinet itself has left the matter to be decided by the KPTCL.

He also relies on the Hon''ble Supreme Court''s decision in the case of State of Gujarat and Others Vs. PWD Employees Union and Others etc., and contends that the decision in Uma Devi''s case (supra) is inapplicable to the persons whose initial recruitment does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Paragraph Nos. 27 and 30 of the said decision read out by him are extracted hereinbelow:

"23. The decisions in Umadevi and A. Umarani were regarding the question concerning regulation of employees entered by back door method or those who were illegally appointed encouraging a political set up, in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. We are of the opinion that both the aforesaid decisions are not applicable in the present case i.e. to the members of the respondent- Employees'' Union for the following reasons:

(i) The Secretary, Forest and Environment Department of the State of Gujarat by his order dated 3.5.2008 held that initially the entry of the daily wagers do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity but is in consonance with the provisions of Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, the question of regularization by removing procedural defects does not arise.

(ii) The Gujarat High Court by its judgment dated 29.10.2010 passed in PWD Employees Union v. State of Gujarat while noticing the aforesaid stand taken by the State also held that the nature of work described in the order dated 3.5.2008 shorn that the daily wage-workers are engaged in the work which is perennial in nature.

(iii) The case of A. Umarani related to regularization of services of irregular appointees. In the said case this Court held that:

"when appointments were made in contravention of mandatory provisions of the Act and statutory rules framed therein and in ignorance of essential qualifications, the same would be illegal and cannot be regularized by the State.

Considering, the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of the Gujarat High Court dated 29.10.2010 in PWD Employees Union v. State of Gujarat and connected matters and the fact that the said judgment is binding between the parties, we are of the view that the appellants should be directed to grant the benefit of the scheme as contained in the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to all the daily-wage workers of the Forest and Environment Department working for more than five years, providing them the benefits as per our finding at para 29 above. The appellants are directed accordingly. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 29.10.2010 as affirmed by the Division Bench by its order dated 28.2.2012 stands modified to the extent above. The benefit should be granted to the eligible daily-wage workers of the Forest and Environment Department working for more than five years including those who are performing work other than building maintenance and repairing but they will be entitled for the consequential benefits w.e.f. 29.10.2010 or subsequent date from which they are so eligible within four months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order. The appeals stand disposed of with the aforesaid observation and directions to the appellant State and its authorities. There shall be no separate orders as to costs."

Sri S.S. Naganand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri S. Sriranga for the respondent KPTCL submits that the recruitment notification, dated 7.2.2007 (Annexure-A) itself states that the appointment would be on contract basis and that therefore the petitioners have no legally vested right to demand that their services be regularized. He brings to my notice the appointment orders issued to the petitioners. They specify their appointments as contract Assistant Engineers or contract Junior Engineers. He submits that the KPTCL has taken a conscious decision not to regularize the services of the contractual appointees after the Hon''ble Supreme Court''s decision in Uma Devi''s case (supra).

He submits that the approval of the Government is sought, as KPTCL is a Government undertaking. That there was no need to take the prior approval of the Government for regularizing the services of the petitioners is not one of the grounds raised in the memorandum of the writ petition, so submits the learned Senior Counsel. Only because the services of the contractual employees of the earlier three batches came to be regularized, the contractual appointees of the next batch cannot claim them as binding precedents. To advance the submission that the regularization of the petitioners runs contrary to the legal position declared by the Apex Court in Uma Devi''s case (supra), he relies on the Apex Court''s judgment in the case of Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Arulmozhi Iniarasu and Others, . Paragraph No. 20 of the said decision read out by him read as follows:

"20. It is plain from the terms of the letter of appointment that the respondents were told in unambiguous terms that their appointments were temporary and would not confer any right to claim any permanent post in the department. It is not the case of the respondents that at any point of time, during their engagements with the appellants, a promise was held out to them by the appellants that they would be absorbed as regular employees of the department. In fact, no such promise could be held out in view of the Government O.M. dated 7th June, 1988 banning the employment of persons in regular posts."

He submits that the petitioners'' reliance on the Government''s letter, dated 14.2.2007 (Annexure-D) in W.P. Nos. 47435-47448/2012 does not come to the rescue of the petitioners in any way because it is issued one week after the issuance of the recruitment notification, dated 7.2.2007. He submits that some regular recruitments have indeed taken place pursuant to the Government''s letter, dated 14.2.2007 on 26.8.2009 and 12.4.2015 for the posts of Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers.

Sri A.S. Ponnanna, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Government submits that the KPTCL had regularized the services of the contractual appointees of the 2003, 2005 and 2006 batches without seeking the approval of the Government. On being asked as to whether the Government raised any objection subsequent to the said regularization, he answers in the negative. He submits that the Government''s letter, dated 14.2.2007 (Annexure-D in W.P. Nos. 47435-47448/2012) would apply for all the ongoing recruitments too.

The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the proposal for the regularization of the petitioners'' services is rejected by the Government, as the regularization move is in contrast to the Apex Court''s judgment in Uma Devi''s case (supra). He submits that it is open to the KPTCL to take its own decision without seeking the approval from the Government. On being specifically asked as to whether the KPTCL can regularize the services of its contract Engineers in the wake of the Government''s disapproval for the same, he submits that the KPTCL is at liberty to take its own decision.

In the course of rejoinder, Sri B.V. Acharya submits that the facts and circumstances of this case warrant the issuance of the positive direction to regularize the services of the petitioners from the date of the passing the resolution, dated 29.12.2010. This is not a case for remanding the matter to the KPTCL, because KPTCL has already passed a resolution for regularizing the services of the contract Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers and because it is the stand of the Government that it is open to the KPTCL to take a decision on its own without insisting for the approval from the Government.

He brings to my notice the Apex Court''s judgment in the case of MALATHI DAS AND OTHERS v. SURESH AND OTHERS reported in (2014) 13 SCC 249, in which case the services of 371 employees were regularized out of 445 employees; the request for the regularization of remaining 74 employees was turned down on the ground that it would be against the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra). The Hon''ble Supreme Court negatived such a contention and directed the Government to regularize the services of the remaining 74 daily rated employees. Paragraph No. 13 of the said decision read out by him is extracted hereinbelow:

"13. In the aforesaid undisputed facts it is wholly unnecessary for us to consider as to whether the cases of persons who were awaiting regularization on the date of the decision in Umadevi is required to be dealt with in accordance with the conditions stipulated in para 53 of Umadevi inasmuch as the claims of the respondent employees can well be decided on principles of parity Similarly placed employees having been regularized by the State and in case of some of them such regularization being after the decision in Umadevi we are of the view that the stand taken by the appellants in refusing regularization to the respondents cannot be countenanced. However, as the said stand of the appellants stems from their perception and understanding of the decision in Umadevi we do not hold them liable for contempt but make it clear that the appellants and all the other competent authorities of the State will now be obliged and duty-bound to regularize the services of the respondents (74 in number) which will now be done forthwith and in any case within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order."

Sri Jayakumar S. Patil submits that no fresh decision is required to be taken by the KPTCL. It has to only implement its resolution from the date of its passing. He brings to my notice that the agenda notes for the earlier resolution for regularizing the services of 2003, 2005 and 2006 batch contract employees and the agenda notes for the resolution for regularizing the services of 2007 contract employees are exactly the same.

Sri S.S. Nagananda joins issue with Sriyuths B.V. Acharya and Jayakumar S. Patil and submits that if this Court is inclined to hold that the Government''s approval for regularizing the services of the petitioners is not required, then KPTCL would consider all the relevant aspects of the matter and take a decision in the matter of regularization. He resists the issuance of the positive direction to KPTCL to regularize the services of the petitioners.

The submissions of the learned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. The question that arises for my consideration is whether the services of the petitioners are to be regularized. For examining this question, the following facts and circumstances are of utmost importance:

(i) The services of the similarly appointed contract Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers have come to be regularized. It is also not in dispute that the appointments of 2005 and 2006 batch of Engineers themselves were on 6.7.2006 and 23.11.2006. The appointments of contract engineers of both the batches are thus after 10.4.2006, the date of the Apex Court''s decision in the case of Uma Devi (supra). It is trite that the similarly placed persons cannot be treated dissimilarly. Some of the Engineers of KPTCL had challenged the decision to regularize the services of the earlier batches of contract engineers by filing W.P. No. 7425/2007. One ground specifically raised by the petitioners in the said case was that the resolution for regularizing the services is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Uma Devi''s case (supra). The said contention is negatived. The unsuccessful petitioners therein took up the matter to the Division Bench and the Hon''ble Supreme Court but without any rate of success.

(ii) The petitioners are not the back-door entrants. They have taken part in the recruitment process which was lawfully initiated. It is not that they are appointed arbitrarily to the exclusion of the other aspiring, eligible candidates. The KPTCL issued the notification calling for application for filling up the posts in question, held the written test and viva-voce also. It has also complied with the reservation and roster requirements. Further, it is also not in dispute that the petitioners are appointed against the sanctioned vacancies. All these factors clearly show that they were appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme for public appointments.

(iii) No provision of KPTCL Service Regulations or Cadre and Recruitments Rules is pointed out to me to show that the prior approval of the Government is necessary for the regularization of the services of its contract employees. It is also worthwhile to notice that for regularizing the services of the earlier three batches of the contract employees, neither the KPTCL sought the approval of the Government nor the Government subsequently raised any objection to the said regularization.

(iv) As is evident from the Government''s letter, dated 14.2.2007, the option/clearance/permission is already granted to the KPTCL to consider the issue of recruiting the Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers on permanent basis instead of contract basis if their services are required on permanent basis. The general clearance accorded by the Government cannot be restricted only to one or two rounds of recruitments, which are stated to have been taken immediately after the issuance of the letter, dated 14.2.2007. As the said letter does not restrict or specify the period of its operation, it has to be taken that it would continue to be in force until such time that it is withdrawn. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the services of the petitioners are required. In this regard, the relevant proceedings may be seen. The proceedings of the meeting of the Board of Directors of KPTCL held on 29.12.2010, inter alia, read as follows:

"The details were perused. It was noted that the above engineers have completed 3 years of service and have hand hands on experience in the utility. KPTCL and ESCOMs have spent substantially on their salaries over the last three years. It is difficult to get experienced hands in the power sector since such experience are rarely available.

Further based on the approval from Government of Karnataka, the above Engineers have been recruited duly following all the procedures and reservation policies of Government. Retention of such experienced engineers would become difficult if they are not considered for regulation."

(v) The perusal of the afore-extracted portions of the proceedings clearly indicate that the petitioners'' services are required. The observation of the Government in its letter, dated 14.2.2007 that the KPTCL may consider the issue of recruiting the Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers on permanent basis instead of contract basis, if they are required on permanent basis has to be seen in conjunction with the assessment of the Board of Directors of KPTCL.

Now let me examine the applicability of the authorities, cited by either side, for the factual matrix of these cases. The Supreme Court''s decision in the case of Uma Devi (supra) is a direction to resort to the process of regular recruitment, as following any other course would be disastrous in as much as it would deprive the security of tenure, right of equality conferred on civil servants under the constitutional scheme. As clarified by the Apex Court and other High Courts subsequently, the decision in Uma Devi''s case (supra) lays down the principle that the services of the back-door entrants cannot be regularized. It does not in any way come in the way of regularizing the services of the employees, who are appointed against the sanctioned vacancies, where publicity is given to the process of making the appointment, applications are called for, written test and viva voce are held, the candidates'' merit is determined and their suitability is ascertained.

In the case of PWD Employees Union (supra), the Apex Court has expressed the considered view that if the process of recruitment is consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the employees are entitled to all the benefits of service including the regularization of service. It has further held that the decision in Uma Devi''s case has no application for the daily wage employees who are engaged in jobs which are perennial in nature and whose initial appointments are not illegal and irregular.

In Nihal Singh''s case (supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed that the judgment in Uma Devi''s case cannot become a licence for exploitation by the State and its instrumentalities. Further, it has come down heavily on the public sector banks for enjoying the cheap labour over a period of decades.

When the initial appointment of the petitioners cannot be categorized as irregular or illegal, the relief of the regularization of their services cannot be denied to them. In a more or less similar case but falling under the contempt jurisdiction, the Apex Court has directed the regularization of services of 74 employees, as the services of the similarly placed 371 employees were regularized.

The Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Sachin Ambadas Dawale (supra) has directed the Maharashtra State Government to confer permanency in service on the employees, who were appointed on contractual basis, as they were through the selection process conducted by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission.

The facts of the cases on hand and of Arulmozhi Iniarasu (supra) are entirely different. In Arulmozhi Iniarasu case (supra), the workmen were engaged as part-time contingent casual labourers purely on temporary basis. They were engaged on the basis of the need of the office for which they were paid on hourly basis. That is why they were held as not eligible for the regularization of their services.

The impugned communication, dated 15.11.2012 turning down the KPTCL''s request for the regularization of services is not sustainable for one simple reason. It does not refer to, much less consider the regularization of the earlier three batches of contract employees. It is therefore difficult to hold that the Government has taken an informed or well-considered decision. Although the impugned communication issued by the Government is not supportable and sustainable, I do not find the need to quash it in view of the submission made on behalf of the Government that it is open to KPTCL to take its own decision in the matter of regularization of its employees.

In the result, I allow these petitions by holding that the petitioners are entitled to the regularization of their services. The KPTCL is directed to regularize the services of the petitioners with effect from 29.12.2010, the date of passing the resolution in that regard and on the same terms on which the services of the contract Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers of 2003, 2005 and 2006 batches were regularized. The KPTCL shall comply with these directions within three months from the date of the issuance of the certified copy of today''s order. No order as to costs.