Appointments Of Veterinary Assistant Surgeons Filled An Urgent Need: Madras HC Upholds Decision Of CAT That Regularised Employees
|The Madras High Court upheld the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal that regularised the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons in the Union Territory of Puducherry who were recruited on a contractual basis.
The Court was hearing a Writ Petition challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal where it allowed the prayer of four applicants, who had sought regularisation of their services as Veterinary Assistant Surgeons in the Union territory of Puducherry from the date of their respective initial appointments with all attendant benefits.
The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice G Arul Murugan observed, “we concur with the conclusion of the Tribunal that the appointments / engagement of the private respondents filled a pressing and urgent need and could not await the luxury of following the long-winded procedure contemplated by resort to Article 320, as it is presently is.”
Special Government Pleader Syed Mustafa appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Karthik Ranjan appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The Director of Animal Husbandry & Welfare issued a notification seeking contract-based Veterinary Assistant Surgeons with qualifications under the Indian Veterinary Council Act. The private Respondents met the required qualifications and were selected and served for a long time with contract renewals despite later direct recruitments favouring candidates with master’s degrees. Although their roles matched those of regular employees, the government argued against regularising them, citing their temporary contract-based engagement pending UPSC-approved recruitment. The UPSC contended that Group ‘A’ VAS posts require its approval under Article 320, precluding regularisation. Nonetheless, the Tribunal ordered the prospective regularisation of the employees. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
The Court observed that the appointments of the private respondents are, at the highest, irregular, and are not illegal.
The Court noted that it is an unfortunate, but admitted position, that the process of effecting direct recruitments is cumbersome and slow, not addressing urgent exigencies or immediate demand for qualified professionals.
The Court however observed, “where the employment requirements of the Union Territory are addressed in a timely fashion, we would have had no hesitation in holding that the process contemplated under Article 320 has necessarily to be followed, and failure would result in fatal consequences.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: Union of India v. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal (Neutral Citation: 2024:MHC:3636)
Appearance:
Appellant: SGP Syed Mustafa
Respondent: Advocates Karthik Rajan and V.Chandrasekaran