Veterinary assistant surgeon positions were filled to meet an urgent need, and the Madras High Court supported the CAT’s decision to regularize these employees.
The Madras High Court supported the Central Administrative Tribunal’s decision to regularize the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons in Puducherry who were hired on a contract basis. The Court was reviewing a Writ Petition that challenged the Tribunal’s order, which had approved the request of four applicants to be regularized as Veterinary Assistant Surgeons from their initial appointment dates, along with all related benefits. Justices Anita Sumanth and G Arul Murugan noted that they agreed with the Tribunal’s conclusion that the hiring of these individuals addressed an urgent need and could not wait for the lengthy process outlined in Article 320.
The Director of Animal Husbandry & Welfare had issued a notice for contract-based Veterinary Assistant Surgeons who met the qualifications set by the Indian Veterinary Council Act. The selected candidates fulfilled these qualifications and worked for an extended period with contract renewals, even though later direct recruitments favored those with master’s degrees. While their duties were similar to those of regular employees, the government opposed their regularization, arguing that their temporary contracts were pending UPSC-approved recruitment. The UPSC stated that Group ‘A’ VAS positions need its approval under Article 320, which prevents regularization. However, the Tribunal ruled in favor of regularizing these employees, leading to the current Writ Petition.
The Court stated that the appointments of the private respondents are irregular at most, but not illegal. It acknowledged that the process for direct recruitment is slow and complicated, which does not meet the urgent need for qualified professionals. The Court remarked that if the employment needs of the Union Territory were met promptly, it would have firmly stated that the process outlined in Article 320 must be followed, and not doing so would lead to serious issues. As a result, 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
