IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 822 OF 2005 (S/S) Asha Praveen and another ….………Petitioners. Versus Union of India and others. ….…..Respondents. Present: Mr. Gopal Narain, Advocate for the petitioners. None for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Vandana Singh, Advocate for respondent no. 3. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.(Oral) Heard Mr. Gopal Narain, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Vandana Singh, Advocate for respondent no. 3. The petitioners were casual contractual workers in Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun. The petitioners as well as many other employees similarly situated as the petitioners were retrenched. Consequently, they moved a claim petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was allowed inasmuch as directions were given to the respondents to frame a scheme for the absorption of such casual workers. Consequent to the order of the Tribunal, a scheme was framed by the Indian Institute of Petroleum. It is an admitted fact that initially the terms and conditions stipulated in the scheme were challenged by the workers by means of a writ petition, but the writ petition failed. Thereafter, the exercise of absorption of such casual workers was started by the Indian Institute of Petroleum as per the scheme. The petitioners in terms of the scheme and consequent to the advertisement also 2 participated in the absorption exercise inasmuch as in response to the advertisement, they participated in the interview and subsequently in a typing test. Having given two chances, as per conditions in the scheme and having failed in both the chances, the petitioners were subsequently removed from the post of casual workers, as was the condition of the “scheme”. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. The main plank of the argument of petitioner no. 1 before this Court is that petitioner no. 1 was a technical worker as she was working as Telephone Operator, therefore, she was liable to be absorbed only as a Telephone Operator. The petitioners have filed this writ petition, in which emphasis has been given on paragraph 3, which is reproduced below: “That the brief case given rise to this petition that the petitioner no. 1 was appointed as Telephone Operator on 1-6-96 and petitioner no. 2 was appointed as LDC on contractual basis on 5-9-96 and continuously discharging their duties with utmost devotion and satisfaction to their superiors.” The case of the respondents, on the other hand, is that both the petitioners had applied for the post of Lower Division Clerk, for which the knowledge of typing was essential. Interestingly this is also the case of the petitioners. In reply to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the of counter affidavit, the petitioners have stated in paragraph 6 of the rejoinder affidavit that both the petitioners had proficiency in typing and therefore they were liable to pass the typing examination yet they have failed! Therefore it is an admitted case of both the 3 petitioners that they had applied for the post of Lower Division Clerk. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in K. Alex Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation reported in (2008) 9 SCC 456, where 275 workers were retrenched. Out of the said 275 workers, 273 workers were absorbed, but only 2 were not absorbed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court said that this is not fair! However, the facts of the case relied upon by the petitioners are entirely different from the present case, therefore, the same cannot be relied upon. Since in the scheme of absorption as well as in the advertisement, one of the essential conditions for being absorbed on the post of Lower Division Clerk was the typing skill of a candidate and the petitioners having failed in the same, they cannot agitate the matter before this Court particularly after having participated in the selection/absorption process. Moreover, this Court is not in a position to judge the typing merit of the petitioners. It appears that there was no flaw in the procedure adopted by the respondents for absorption and therefore, no interference is called for by this Court. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 24.5.2011 Rathour