Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010025812022 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1148/2022 SUBHASH KALITA S/O. LT. KRISHNA RAM KALITA, VILL. PURAN KATAHI, P.O. AND P.S. CHHAYGAON, DIST. KAMRUP (R), ASSAM, PIN-781122. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, POWER AND ELECTRICITY DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. (APDCL) REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR BIJULI BHAWAN GUWAHATI-781001. 3:THE GENERAL MANAGER (HR) APDCL BIJULI BHAWAN GUWAHATI-781001. 4:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (HR) APDCL BIJULI BHAWN GUWAHATI-781001. 5:THE SELECTION COMMITTEE- B REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN CONSTITUTED BY THE APDCL BIJULI BHAWAN Page No.# 2/7 GUWAHATI-781001 FOR SELECTION OF THE CANDIDATES FOR THE POST OF OFFICE CUM FIELD ASSISTANT Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHOUDHURY, MS. A KAUSHAR,MR. S ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 19.03.2025 Heard Mr. S Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. (APDCL). 2. The petitioner claims that he was selected and engaged on contractual basis as an outsourced Meter Reader under Mirza Sub-Division vide the respondent APDCL and he has been working in various Sub-Divisional Offices under the APDCL from 01.09.1998 on the basis of such engagement. 3. An advertisement dated 14.08.2018 was issued by the respondent APDCL inviting applications from candidates who either did not have any earlier experience with the APDCL or are having some experience in the power sector to fill up certain posts of Office cum Field Assistant, Sahayak and Mali. The advertisement provides that 1000 posts would be under consideration for Office cum Field Assistant, 872 for Sahayak and further 60 posts for Assistant Accounts Officer, 25 for Light Vehicle Driver and 2 for Gardener or Mali. The Page No.# 3/7 advertisement also provides the breakup of the vacancies by applying the law of reservation. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the APDCL submits that the eligibility criteria would also require an experience of having worked as contractual workers under the APDCL/AEGCL/APGCL or any other power sector PSU where they may have been engaged as Meter Reader, Sahayak etc. as the case may be, but having rendered service of not less than 5 years as on 01.04.2018. 5. This Court takes note that although the recruitment process was for the fresh candidates as well as the candidates who earlier worked with the APDCL/AEGCL/APGCL, but the qualifications prescribed for the recruitment from the two sources are different and for the purpose of direct recruitment from the open market the qualification stipulates some higher educational qualification. But in respect of those candidates who earlier worked with the APDCL/AEGCL/APGCL the required qualification was put up at a slightly lower level. Accordingly, as a lower educational qualification has been fixed for recruitment of the experienced candidates, a further eligibility have also been put in place that they must have an experience of atleast 5 years. The petitioner participated in the selection process which ultimately culminated in the short list of candidates published by the notice dated 10.02.2020. The grievance of the petitioner is that although his name appeared in the short list of candidate Page No.# 4/7 dated 10.02.2020 but in order of merit, his name did not appear in the shortlisted candidates (experienced) list. This Court has gone through the writ petition of the petitioner and do not find any averment to indicate that the process of selection is vitiated in any manner or that for some given acceptable reason the name of the petitioner ought to have been higher up in order of merit in the short list of candidates. 6. This Court further takes note that in the writ petition there is a prayer by the petitioner that having worked for more than 25 years, his service is required to be regularized by the authorities. The petitioner’s prayer is that since he has been worked for more than 25 years, therefore, he is entitled to be regularized. The question of regularizing such contractual employees appointed in an irregular manner had been dealt with by the Supreme Court in Secretary State of Karnataka –vs- Umadevi & Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 as well as this Court in WA 45/2014. 7. There is a decision of this Court in WP(C) 482(AP)/2011 wherein, all the relevant laws including pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Umadevi (supra), State of Punjab–vs Jagjit Singh reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 Nihal Singh & Ors –vs- State Of Punjab & Ors reported in (2013) 14 SCC 65 were taken into consideration. 8. This Court by relying on the provisions of the Supreme Court in paragraph- Page No.# 5/7 55 of Umadevi (supra) as well as Jagjit Singh (supra), Nihal Singh (supra) and Official Liquidator –vs Dayananad & Ors reported in (2008), the following principles were culled out in the judgment dated 17.01.2017 in WP(C) 482AP/2011 which are extracted as below:- “The employees who had been working continuously for more than ten years up to the date of the judgment in Umadevi’s case i.e. 10.04.2006, without the aid and benefit of any interim order/order(s) of any Courts or Tribunals, against sanctioned posts, although appointed in an irregular manner, are entitled to be regularized as an one time measure. The exercise of one time measure is to be made department or institution wise and where appointments may have been made without any selection process, but from amongst duly qualified candidates and against sanctioned posts are to be considered as irregular appointments. Employees engaged on a daily wage basis, and required to perform the same nature, quality and quantity of work as that of the regular employees working against sanctioned vacant posts, are entitled to a salary, at least in the minimum of the pay scale, that are paid to the regular employees. Posts are required to be created by the State depending upon the need to employ people having regard to various functions that the State undertakes to discharge and that the posts are to be sanctioned and created by the State by a conscious choice on the basis of a rational assessment of the need. Any act on the part of the State compelling the employee to take a lesser wage and perform the same work as is being done by the regular employees, by taking advantage of its dominant position and the unemployment scenario prevailing in the Country, would constitute an act of exploitative enslavement, which will also be a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A stand on the part of the State respondent authorities that such temporary employees had accepted the offered employment at a lower wage on their own volition and that they are not working against any sanctioned posts, and as such, Page No.# 6/7 not entitled to a regular scale of pay, or regularization, is as such, not acceptable.” 9. It is the contention of the petitioner that in similarly situated matters, a Coordinate Bench had directed the respondents to consider the cases of the writ petitioner by passing appropriate orders. One such order is enclosed to the writ petition as Annexure-L which has been pressed into service by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. It is seen that by order dated 23.02.2021 passed in WP(C) No.1353/2020, a Coordinate Bench had delt with a matter of similar grievances. Referring to Jagjit Singh (supra), Nihal Singh (supra) and Official Liquidator (supra), this Court disposed of the matter directing the APDCL Authority to consider the case of the individuals, if they are found to be working for more than 10 (ten) years upto the judgment of Uma Devi (supra) against the sanctioned vacant post a onetime measure may be made for their regularization. 11. Having perused the order dated 23.02.2021 passed in WP(C) No.1353/2020 by the Coordinate Bench, this Court also persuaded to pass similar order closing the present proceeding. 12. In the instant case also as it is the claim of the petitioner that he has been working as contractual employees for more than 25 years and therefore, would be entitled to the benefits as indicated in the above extracted portion of the judgment dated 17.01.2017. Page No.# 7/7 13. Accordingly, the respondent APDCL is directed to consider the case of the petitioner and if he is found to have been working for more than 25 years up to the judgment of Umadevi (supra) i.e. 10.04.2006 and was working against the sanctioned vacant post, a onetime measure may be made for his regularization. If the petitioner is found not to have worked for more than 25 years upto 10.04.2006, but have worked for more than 25 years in the meantime, the respondents may consider him for a benefit of providing him the salary atleast in the minimum pay scale that are otherwise payable to an equivalent regularly appointed employee, which again would be consistent with the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 08.06.2017 passed in WA 45/2014. 14. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant