Kuldeep Singh vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Held

The Court held that the petitioners had not made out a case for quashing the impugned advertisement. While acknowledging the Government Order of March 24, 2011, declaring Group-D posts as a dying cadre, the Court noted that the State Government had subsequently taken a policy decision on December 17, 2018, to fill Group-D posts in the Subordinate Courts as a one-time program through direct recruitment, considering the nature of work. The High Court decided to implement this policy. The Court found that the petitioners, working on a contractual basis, had the right to apply for the advertised posts. The Court concluded that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any breach of their fundamental rights or any illegality in the advertisement. Therefore, the Court found no reason to interfere with the advertisement and dismissed the writ petitions.

Facts

The petitioners, contractual Group-D employees working in various judgeships through Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited (UPNL), challenged an advertisement dated August 16, 2019, issued by the Uttarakhand Technical Education Board for recruitment to Group-D posts in the Subordinate Courts of Uttarakhand. The petitioners argued that Group-D posts were declared a dying cadre in 2011, with work to be outsourced. They contended that their services should be regularized based on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi and a previous High Court order directing regularization of UPNL-sponsored employees. They also claimed that direct recruitment would lead to their disengagement and violate their fundamental rights. The High Court, however, noted a subsequent State Government policy decision dated December 17, 2018, to fill vacant Group-D posts in subordinate courts as a one-time program through direct recruitment, which the High Court decided to implement. The UPNL submitted that the previous High Court order was stayed by the Supreme Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners have made out a case for quashing the advertisement dated 16.08.2019 issued by respondent no. 2 for recruitment of Group-D posts in Subordinate Courts of Uttarakhand, considering their claim for regularization and the State's policy decision. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that Group-D posts were declared a dying cadre, and therefore, direct recruitment should not be permitted. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi for regularization and a Division Bench order of the Uttarakhand High Court in WPSS No. 116 of 2018 (Kundan Singh vs. State & ors.) directing phased regularization of UPNL-sponsored employees and prohibiting GST/service tax deductions from their salaries. They argued that filling the posts through direct recruitment would lead to their disengagement and violate Article 14 of the Constitution. Respondent's arguments (State Government and High Court): The respondents pointed to a State Government policy decision dated 17.12.2018 to fill vacant Group-D posts in subordinate courts as a one-time program through direct recruitment. The High Court decided to proceed with this policy. Respondent no. 6 (UPNL) stated that the Division Bench order relied upon by the petitioners was stayed by the Supreme Court.