Case: UNIVERSITY OF DELHI Vs. DELHI UNIVERSITY CONTRACT EMPLOYEES UNION &amp; ORS

follows: (SCC pp. 250-51, paras 9-11) 9. The term one-time measure has to be under- stood in its proper perspective. This would nor- mally mean that after the decision in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 , each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularise their services. 10. At the end of six months from the date of de- cision in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 , cases of several daily- wage/ad hoc/casual employees were still pending before courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one- time regularisation process. On the other hand, some government departments or instrumentali- ties undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of the decision in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 , will not lose their right to be considered for regu- larisation, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six-month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 has expired. The one-time exer- cise should consider all daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10-4-2006 without availing the pro- tection of any interim orders of courts or tri- bunals. If any employer had held the one-time ex- ercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 , but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 , the employer concerned should con- sider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one-time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 , are so considered. 11. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 is twofold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of con- tinuous service without the protection of any in- terim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 was rendered, are con- sidered for regularisation in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily- wage/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods and then periodically regularise them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appoint- ment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10-4-2006 [the date of decision in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 without the protection of any in- terim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularisation. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be con- sidered for regularisation in terms of the above directions in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 as a one-time measure. 7. The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 was therefore twofold, namely, to prevent irregular or ille- gal appointments in the future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past. The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the decision in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appoint- ments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This is precisely what Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 and Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 247 [Paras 7 & 8], sought to avoid. 10. The decision in Narendra Kumar Tiwari (2018) 8 SCC 238 has to be understood in the backdrop of the facts of that case. 11. The contract employees in the present case cannot, therefore, claim the relief of regularization in terms of paragraph 53 of the decision in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1. The rejection of their petition by the single Judge of the High Court was quite correct and there was no occasion for the Division Bench to interfere in the matter. 12. It is true that, as on the day when the judgment in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 was delivered by this Court, the contract employees had put in just about 3 to 4 years of service. But, as of now, most of them have completed more than 10 years of service on contract basis. Though the benefit of regularization cannot be granted, a window of opportunity must be given to them to compete with the available talent through public advertisement. A separate and exclusive test meant only for the contract employees will not be an answer as that would confine the zone of consideration to contract employees themselves. The modality suggested by the University, on the other hand, will give them adequate chance and benefit to appear in the ensuing selection.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]7. The decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1  was pronounced on 10.04.2006 by which time, the earliest contract employees had put in only 3-4 years of service and most of the contract employees were engaged after the decision in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1. In paragraphs 47, 49 and 53 of the decision in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 , this Court stated:-47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognised by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in cases concerned, in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post.… … …49. It is contended that the State action in not regularising the employees was not fair within the framework of the rule of law. The rule of law compels the State to make appointments as envisaged by the Constitution and in the manner we have indicated earlier. In most of these cases, no doubt, the employees had worked for some length of time but this has also been brought about by the pendency of proceedings in tribunals and courts initiated at the instance of the employees. Moreover, accepting an argument of this nature would mean that the State would be permitted to perpetuate an illegality in the matter of public employment and that would be a negation of the constitutional scheme adopted by us, the people of India. It is therefore not possible to accept the argument that there must be a direction to make permanent all the persons employed on daily wages. When the court is approached for relief by way of a writ, the court has necessarily to ask itself whether the person before it had any legal right to be enforced. Considered in the light of the very clear constitutional scheme, it cannot be said that the employees have been able to establish a legal right to be made permanent even though they have never been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.… … …53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa AIR 1967 SC 1071 , R.N. Nanjundappa (1972) 1 SCC 409  and B.N. Nagarajan (1979) 4 SCC 507  and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.9. All the decisions relied upon by Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned Senior Advocate were by Benches of two Judges of this Court and in each of those cases, the concerned employees had put in more than 10 years of service and could claim benefit in terms of paragraph 53 of the decision in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1. In the last of those decisions i.e. in Narendra Kumar Tiwari (2018) 8 SCC 238 , the submission was that the employees had not put in more than 10 years of service with the newly created State of Jharkhand and, therefore, there was no entitlement in terms of the decision in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1. Relying on the concept of one-time measure elaborated in M.L. Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 247 [Paras 7 & 8], it was observed:-3. The appellants had contended before the High Court that the State of Jharkhand was created only on 15-11-2000 and therefore no one could have completed 10 years of ser- vice with the State of Jharkhand on the cut-off date of 10- 4-2006. Therefore, no one could get the benefit of the Reg- ularisation Rules which made the entire legislative exercise totally meaningless. The appellants had pointed out in the High Court that the State had issued Resolutions on 18-7- 2009 and 19-7-2009 permitting the regularisation of some employees of the State, who had obviously not put in 10 years of service with the State. Consequently, it was sub- mitted that the appellants were discriminated against for no fault of theirs and in an irrational manner.… … …6. The concept of a one-time measure was further ex- plained in Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 247 [Paras 7 & 8] in paras 9, 10 and 11 of the Report which read as follows: (SCC pp. 250-51, paras 9-11)9. The term one-time measure has to be under- stood in its proper perspective. This would nor- mally mean that after the decision in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 , each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularise their services.10. At the end of six months from the date of de- cision in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 , cases of several daily- wage/ad hoc/casual employees were still pending before courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one- time regularisation process. On the other hand, some government departments or instrumentali- ties undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of the decision in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 , will not lose their right to be considered for regu- larisation, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six-month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 has expired. The one-time exer- cise should consider all daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10-4-2006 without availing the pro- tection of any interim orders of courts or tri- bunals. If any employer had held the one-time ex- ercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 , but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 , the employer concerned should con- sider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one-time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 , are so considered.11. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 is twofold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of con- tinuous service without the protection of any in- terim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1  was rendered, are con- sidered for regularisation in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily- wage/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods and then periodically regularise them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appoint- ment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10-4-2006 [the date of decision in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 without the protection of any in- terim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularisation. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1  or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be con- sidered for regularisation in terms of the above directions in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1  as a one-time measure.7. The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1  was therefore twofold, namely, to prevent irregular or ille- gal appointments in the future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past. The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the decision in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1  is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appoint- ments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This is precisely what Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1  and Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 247 [Paras 7 & 8], sought to avoid.10. The decision in Narendra Kumar Tiwari (2018) 8 SCC 238  has to be understood in the backdrop of the facts of that case.11. The contract employees in the present case cannot, therefore, claim the relief of regularization in terms of paragraph 53 of the decision in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1. The rejection of their petition by the single Judge of the High Court was quite correct and there was no occasion for the Division Bench to interfere in the matter.12. It is true that, as on the day when the judgment in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1  was delivered by this Court, the contract employees had put in just about 3 to 4 years of service. But, as of now, most of them have completed more than 10 years of service on contract basis. Though the benefit of regularization cannot be granted, a window of opportunity must be given to them to compete with the available talent through public advertisement. A separate and exclusive test meant only for the contract employees will not be an answer as that would confine the zone of consideration to contract employees themselves. The modality suggested by the University, on the other hand, will give them adequate chance and benefit to appear in the ensuing selection.