Judgment · High Court · 2012

#4. Mr. Dutta submits that the decision of the Board of Directors of APDCL i s contrary to the directions issued by the Apex Court in Umadevi (3) (supra), mo re particularly in paragraph 53 thereof, as the APDCL by taking such decision ha s refused to consider the cases of those Meter Readers and Bill Clerks, who on t he date of delivery of the judgment in Umadevi (3) completed 10(ten) years conti nuous service without the aid of any Court’s order and were appointed against th e sanctioned post and have the requisite qualification for recruitment as Meter Reader and Bill Clerk. The learned Sr. counsel submits that the Apex Court in Um adevi (3) (supra), though has held that the regularization of casual labour, dai ly wage earner and temporary employee is contrary to the constitutional scheme o f public employment, the Apex Court, however, has curved out an exception in res pect of such employees who were engaged against the sanctioned vacant post, work ed for 10(ten) years or more without the cover of the orders of the Courts or Tr ibunals and have the requisite qualification by directing the Union of India, St ate Government and their instrumentality to take steps to regularize their servi ces as one time measure, process of which was directed to be set in motion withi n 6(six) months from the date of delivery of judgment.

#5. Mr. Dutta further submits that the Apex Court in State of Karnataka & or s. Vs. M.L. Kesari & ors. reported in (2010)9 SCC 247 has explained its earlier direction in Umadevi (3) (supra) to the effect that each department or the instr umentality of the State must undertake a one time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily wage or adhoc employees, who have been working for more than 10(ten) years without the intervention of the Courts or Tribunals and subject th em to a process of verification as to whether they were working against vacant p osts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, to regulari ze their services. The learned Sr. counsel submits that despite the aforesaid de cision of the Apex Court, the Board of Directors of APDCL has adopted the afores aid decision dated 30.06.2012, without undertaking the one time exercise for reg ularization of services of those Meter Readers and Bill Clerks, who have been wo rking for more than 10(ten) years without the intervention of the Courts or the Tribunals against the sanctioned vacant posts and possess the requisite qualific ation.

#6. The learned Sr. counsel referring to the Full Bench decision of this Cou rt in Jitendra Kalita & ors. Vs. State of Assam & ors. reported in 2006(2) GLT 6 54 has submitted that the Full Bench has never directed the State or its instrum entalities not to undertake the one time exercise of regularization of those cla sses of employees as directed by the Apex Court in Umadevi (3) (supra) and M.L. Kesari (supra), and the issue before the Full Bench being whether the decision o f the Govt. of Assam as reflected in the office memorandum dated 20.04.1995 is t he policy decision, there was no occasion for the Full Bench to deal with the sa id question of regularisation. The Full Bench, according to the learned Sr. coun sel, has held that the said office memorandum having not been preceeded by any p olicy decision taken by the Government, no regularization can be made pursuant t o the said office memorandum. The learned Sr. counsel, therefore, submits that t he respondent APDCL may be directed to initiate the process for regularization o f those outsourced Meter Readers and Bill Clerks, who have been working for 10(t en) years or more without the intervention of any Courts or Tribunals against th e sanctioned vacant post and have requisite qualification, before finalization o f the process initiated by issuing the advertisement dated 19.07.2011 to fill up the posts of Meter Readers and Bill Clerks by direct recruitment.

#7. Mr. Dasgupta, the learned counsel adopting the arguments advanced by Mr. Dutta, learned Sr. counsel, further submits that since the outsourced Meter Rea ders and Bill Clerks are discharging the same duties as has been discharging by the regular Meter Readers and Bill Clerks of APDCL, they are entitled to the sal ary in the pay scale attached to the said post, on the principle of equal pay fo r equal work, during the period prior to regularization, which is the essence of Article 39(d) of the Constitution. The learned counsel further submits that sin ce the respondent APDCL has extracted the services of the petitioners for a long period of time, who have discharged their duties to the satisfaction of all con cerned, they cannot be thrown out of the employment and the respondent authority is duty bound to formulate the scheme for their regularization.

#8. Mr. N. Choudhury, the learned counsel in addition to the submissions adv anced by the other learned counsel, as noticed above, has also submitted that th e Meter Readers and Bill Clerks being the employees of the erstwhile ASEB and no w of APDCL, they are entitled to all benefits available to them including regula rization in service, they having worked for more than 240 days, otherwise it wou ld amount to unfair labour practice within the meaning of the Industrial Dispute s Act, there being no dispute that the APDCL is an industry. The learned counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Co urt in Indian Overseas Bank Vs. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers Union & anr. report ed in (2000)4 SCC 245.

#9. Mr. Buzarbaruah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in so me of the writ petitions while adopting the arguments advanced by other learned counsel, has submitted that like in the case of the recruitment to the post of S ahayak, where the respondent authority has decided to fill up 50% of the regular vacancy by absorbing the existing casual or outsourced employees, 50% of the va cancies of Meter Readers and Bill Clerks is also required to be filled up from a mongst the outsourced Meter Readers and Bill Clerks, as there is no justificatio n to apply different standard for absorption of the casual Sahayaks and outsourc ed Meter Readers and Bill Clerks.

#10. Dr. Ahmed, the learned counsel also submits that the decision of the Boa rd dated 30.06.2012 is contrary to the decision of the Apex Court in Umadevi (3) . It has also been submitted that the Board though was sympathetic and started a process for regularization of outsourced Meter Readers and Bill Clerks by const ituting a Committee for making necessary recommendation in that regard, it has, however, took a decision on 30.06.2012 not to initiate any process for regulariz ation of service, basically in view of the Government’s office memorandum dated 16.06.2012, which is contrary to the Apex Court judgment in Umadevi (3). Dr. Ahm ed also submits that there is no justification to treat the outsourced Sahayaks and the outsourced Meter Readers and Bill Clerks differently, as has been done b y the APDCL in the matter of their absorption. The learned counsel submits that since the APDCL has decided to fill up 50% of the vacancies of Sahayaks by absor ption of the outsourced Sahayaks, the same principle should also be followed in the matter of outsourced Meter Readers and Bill Clerks.

#11. Mr. Saikia, learned Addl. Advocate General, defending the Government’s d ecision as reflected in the office memorandum dated 16.06.2012, has submitted th at the said office memorandum has been issued pursuant to the cabinet decision n ot to regularize the Work Charged, Muster Roll and Casual employees, even those who are engaged prior to 01.04.1993, in consonance with the decision of the Apex Court in Umadevi (3) (supra) as well as the decision of the Full Bench in Jiten dra Kalita (supra), wherein it has been held that such regularization would be a gainst the constitutional scheme of public employment. It has also been submitte d that the said decision was taken, having regard to the fact that in none of th e Government departments those classes of employees were engaged against any san ctioned vacant posts. Mr. Saikia further submits that the question as to whether there was any Casual, Work Charged or Muster Roll employees in any department o f Govt. of Assam working for 10(ten) years or more without the intervention of t he Courts or Tribunals and against the sanctioned post being not the question in the present batch of writ petitions, this Court may not scrutinize the legality and validity of the Government’s decision as reflected in the office memorandum dated 16.06.2012.

#12. Mr. Das, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondent APDCL, has sub mitted that though the argument has been advanced by the learned counsel appeari ng for the petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions that they are enti tled to consider for regularization, as one time measure, they having rendered s ervices for 10(ten) years or more against the regular vacant post and having req uisite qualification, the pleadings in that respect in the present writ petition s are devoid of material particulars. The learned Sr. counsel further submits th at the Board of Directors of respondent APDCL, having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in Umadevi (3) (supra), decided not to regularize the services of the outsourced persons and at the same time to give due weightage for the exper ience and skill they have acquired apart from for the period of service they hav e rendered and also to give age relaxation, in the regular process of recruitmen t, thereby giving the benefit they deserve. The learned Sr. counsel further subm its that the Board of Directors of APDCL has decided to initiate the process for recruitment of 750 Meter Readers and Bill Clerks and accordingly the advertisem ent was issued laying down the eligibility criteria and giving the aforesaid ben efit to the existing outsourced persons. It has also been submitted that in case of the outsourced persons, the educational qualification has also been relaxed. Mr. Das further submits that there are 250 more posts of Meter Readers and Bill Clerks, process for filling up of the same shall be initiated by the APDCL shor tly, apart from the process already initiated for recruitment of 750 such person s. It has also been submitted that there are only 60 Meter Readers and Bill Cler ks, out of 1530 nos., who have rendered their services for 10(ten) years or more as on 01.07.2012, all of whom would also not be eligible for consideration for regularization in service, in view of the Apex Court judgment in Umadevi (3).

#13. The learned Sr. counsel, however, has submitted that the APDCL shall cer tainly undertake the process for regularization of services of the Meter Readers and Bill Clerks, if any, as one time measure, who have completed 10(ten) years or more without the intervention of the orders of the Courts or Tribunals as on the date of delivery of the judgment in Umadevi (3) and who were engaged against the sanctioned vacant post and have requisite qualification. Mr. Das, therefore , submits that since there are 250 more posts of Meter Readers and Bill Clerks a vailable, the process of recruitment of which is going to be initiated shortly, the respondent APDCL may be allowed to complete the process of recruitment initi ated vide advertisement dated 11.07.2011 for recruitment against 750 posts of Me ter Readers and Bill Clerks. It has also been submitted that in the said process already initiated and the process to be initiated for such recruitment, the Met er Readers and Bill Clerks who are not eligible for consideration for regulariza tion in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in Umadevi (3), would be given t he benefit of the decision of the Board of Directors taken in its proceeding dat ed 30.06.2012 i.e. the due weightage for their experience, skill and length of s ervice apart from relaxing the upper age limit.

#14. Countering the arguments advanced by Mr. Dasgupta, it has been submitted by Mr. Das, learned Sr. counsel that the petitioners are not entitled to the sa lary in the same scale of pay attached to the Meter Readers and Bill Clerks, on the principle of equal pay for equal work, as the method of recruitment, nature of work and the educational qualification are different. Mr. Das further submits that the temporary or casual employees, who have been engaged by the APDCL with out undergoing the process of selection, cannot claim parity in pay. That apart according to the learned Sr. counsel as because they are serving for more than 2 40 days, they are not entitled to regularization, as it would amount to backdoor entry into the service and also against the law laid down by the Apex Court in Umadevi (3). The learned Sr. counsel also submits that the decision to fill up 5 0% of the available vacancies of Sahayak from amongst the outsourced Sahayak was taken, having regard to the non-availability of experienced and skilled persons as well as their expertise apart from the requirement and as such the same prin ciple cannot be followed in the matter of recruitment to the post of Meter Reade rs and Bill Clerks. The learned counsel further submits that any process initiat ed for regularization of Meter Readers and Bill Clerks, who do not come within t he exception curved out by the Apex Court, would be contrary to the law laid dow n in Umadevi (3). Mr. Das, therefore, submits that the submission of Mr. Choudhu ry that the non-regularization of the services of the Meter Readers and Bill Cle rks would amount to unfair labour practice within the meaning of Industrial Disp utes Act also cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court. Mr. Das in support of his contention has placed reliance on the decisions of th e Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh & ors. Vs. Yogesh Chandra Dubey & ors. r eported in (2006)8 SCC 67 and in State of Rajasthan & ors. Vs. Daya Lal & ors. r eported in (2011)2 SCC 429.

#15. rties. I have also perused the pleadings of the parites. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the pa

#16. The petitioners who are admittedly the outsourced temporary employees an d claim to be working as Meter Readers and Bill Clerks for a long time, initiall y under ASEB and thereafter on formation of APDCL under it, have filed these pet itions claiming consideration for regularization in service against the existing vacancies of Meter Readers and Bill Clerks, 750 of which posts have been advert ised vide advertisement dated 11.07.2011 for recruitment, apart from claiming pa rity in pay. As noticed above, the basic contention of the petitioners is that s ince they are working for more than 10(ten) years without the aid of any order p assed by any Court or Tribunal and against the sanctioned vacant post and they h ave requisite qualification for recruitment as Meter Readers and Bill Clerks, th eir cases are required to be considered for regularization, in terms of the judg ment passed by the Apex Court in Umadevi (3). The further contention of the peti tioners is that as they are discharging the same work as has been discharging by the regular Meter Readers and Bill Clerks, they are also entitled to the parity in pay. The petitioners have challenged the advertisement dated 11.07.2011, on the ground that the same has been issued without considering their cases for reg ularization, as well as the decision of the APDCL dated 30.06.2012 not to consid er their cases for regularization, apart from the Government’s office memorandum dated 16.06.2012.

#17. The Apex Court in Umadevi (3) (supra) has held that the Courts ordinaril y should not issue directions for absorption, regularization or permanent contin uance of temporary or adhoc employees unless the recruitment itself was made reg ularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. It has further been held that the orders for absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of the tempor ary, contractual, casual or daily wage employees cannot be passed in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution as the same would defeat the co ncept of social justice and equal opportunity for all and amounts to preventing regular selection or recruitment at the instance of such persons. It has also be en held that such order would also defeat the very constitutional scheme of publ ic employment. The Apex Court, therefore, has held that there cannot be any regu larization in service of those classes of persons. The Apex Court has further he ld that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a pro per competition amongst qualified persons, the same would not confer any right o n the appointee. It has also been held that because a temporary employee or a ca sual worker has continued for a time beyond the term for his employment, he woul d not be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength o f such continuance, if the appointment was not made by following a due process o One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular app f selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. While holding so the Apex Court has, however, curved out an exception in paragraph 53 of the said report which r eads as follows:- (cid:28)53. ointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanj undappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified p ersons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees ha ve continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of order s of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the princi ples settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of th is judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and thei r instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the s ervices 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 tribunal s and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill tho se vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporar y employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in m otion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgmen t, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement an d regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitu tional scheme. (cid:29) The direction issued by the Apex Court in Umadevi (3), curving out an ex 18. ception in respect of the employees who have worked for more than 10(ten) years against the duly sanctioned posts without the intervention of any Court or Tribu nal and having requisite qualification, came to be considered by the Apex Court in M.L. Kesari (supra), wherein it has been held that the term (cid:28)one-time measure (cid:29) occurring in Umadevi (3) has to be understood in its proper perspective, which means that after the decision in Umadevi (3), each department or each instrumen tality should undertake a one time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, da ily-wage or ad hoc employees, who have been working for more than 10(ten) years without the intervention of Courts or Tribunals and subject them to a process of verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess th e requisite qualification for the post.

#19. In the instant case, as noticed above, the petitioners claim to be appoi nted against the sanctioned vacant post and some of them claimed to have been wo rked for more than 10(ten) years without the intervention of the Court or Tribun al. They have also claimed that they have the requisite qualification. Though th e said claim of the petitioners relating to their engagement against the regular vacant post has been denied by the respondent APDCL, it appears from the notifi cation dated 09.04.2012 issued by the APDCL that in view of the shortfall of the adequate manpower due to retirement of substantial number of Meter Readers and Bill Clerks, the local authorities at field level outsourced the job of meter re ading and preparing of energy bills to some local agencies/persons at a fixed ra te on contractual/daily wage basis over a period of time, which notification, th erefore, signifies engagement of certain Meter Readers and Bill Clerks at fixed rate against the existing vacancies.

#20. As discussed above, the Apex Court in Umadevi (3) has curved out an exce ption for consideration for regularization, as one time measure, of those employ ees who were irregularly appointed and have worked for 10(ten) years or more in duly sanctioned posts, but not under cover of the orders of the Courts or Tribun als and having requisite qualification. Such 10(ten) years or more has to be rec koned on the date of delivery of the judgment by the Apex Court i.e. 10.04.2006. The direction contained in paragraph 53 of Umadevi (3) has to be carried out by the State and their instrumentality and in the present case by the APDCL, which is an instrumentality of the State. It is apparent from the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the APDCL and also the materials placed bef ore the Court that despite the aforesaid direction issued by the Apex Court, suc h an exercise has not been carried out till date, though the APDCL is duty bound to undertake such exercise as one time measure. It also appears from the pleadi ngs of the APDCL that 750 posts of Meter Readers and Bill Clerks have already be en advertised vide advertisement dated 11.07.2011 and other 250 of such posts ar e still lying vacant, process for recruitment against which is going to be initi ated soon. The averments made by the APDCL in the additional affidavit that only 60 persons as on 01.07.2012 have been working for 10(ten) years or more as Mete r Readers and Bill Clerks, have not been disputed by any of the petitioners by f iling any reply affidavit.

#21. A Full Bench of this Court in Jitendra Kalita (supra), placing reliance on Umadevi (3) has also held that the long continuance of the employees on irreg ular basis do not vest any legal right to claim regularization. In the said case the issue was whether the office memorandum dated 20.04.1995 issued by the Govt . of Assam for regularization of Muster Roll and Work Charged employees was issu ed pursuant to any policy decision and hence any such employee can claim for reg ularization in view of such office memorandum. The Full Bench has held that such office memorandum was not issued pursuant to any policy decision of the Governm ent and as long continuance of the employees on irregular basis does not vest an y legal right to claim regularization, there cannot be any regularization of ser vice of Muster Roll and Work Charged employees. In the said case it was being no t the claim of any of the petitioners that they are entitled to be considered fo r regularization in view of the exception curved out by the Apex Court in Umadev i (3), there was no occasion for the Full Bench to deal with the said question.

#22. As discussed above, in view of the Apex Court judgment in Umadevi (3) (s upra) and M.L. Kesari (supra), the APDCL is duty bound to consider as one time m easure, those irregularly appointed Meter Readers and Bill Clerks for regulariza tion in service, who have completed 10(ten) years or more continuous service as on 10.04.2006 [date of delivery of judgment in Umadevi (3)] without the interven tion of the Court, and were appointed against the sanctioned vacant post and hav e requisite qualification. The APDCL, however, cannot consider other Meter Reade rs and Bill Clerks for regularization, who do not fulfill the aforesaid three cr iterion. The vacancies of the Meter Readers and Bill Clerks have to be filled up by initiating the process of recruitment as required under the constitutional s cheme of public employment, except those, which are required to be filled up by regularization of services of the aforesaid irregularly appointed Meter Readers and Bill Clerks. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that if they a 23. re not regularized in service, that would amount to unfair labour practice also does not merit acceptance, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Uma devi (3) and also on the ground that if they are directed to be regularized in s ervice, it would amount to backdoor entry into the service, thereby depriving th e other eligible persons for being considered for selection in a regular recruit ment process initiated by the respondent authority, which in turn would amount t o violation of the constitutional scheme of public employment. In Indian Oversea s Bank (supra) the issue was whether the canteen workers of Canteen Cooperative Society promoted by the bank employees and facilitated by the bank are workmen a nd, if so, whether the closure of such canteen was justified, consequently wheth er such workmen are entitled for reinstatement. The Apex Court having regard to the facts involved in the said case has held that the canteen workers are workme n of the bank and as such are entitled to be reinstated in service as the closur e was found to be illegal. The issue was not relating to the regularization in s ervice. Hence the ratio laid down in the said decision, as cited by the learned counsel, is not applicable in these cases.

#24. This leads to the question as to whether the petitioners are entitled to The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constituti parity in pay. To claim the parity in pay, the petitioners must demonstrate tha t they are discharging the same duties and functions as has been discharging by the regular Meter Readers and Bill Clerks and they have the equal responsibiliti es. The persons claiming parity in pay must also demonstrate that their method o f recruitment is same, apart from the educational qualification. In the case in hand, the petitioners were not engaged by following any recruitment process. On the other hand, the regular Meter Readers and Bill Clerks are appointed by follo wing the recruitment process. Hence the mode of recruitment of the petitioners a nd the regular Meter Readers and Bill Clerks are different, though they may be d ischarging the similar nature of duties and functions and having equal responsib ilities. The Apex Court in Yogesh Chandra Dubey (supra) has held that a person, who had been appointed by State upon following the recruitment rules, enjoys a s tatus. The State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, while offering public employment must comply with the constitutional and also th e statutory requirements. The appointment to the post must be made in terms of t he existing rules and the regularization is not a mode of appointment. It has fu rther been held that if any recruitment is made by way of regularization, the sa me would mean a backdoor appointment which does not have any legal sanction. Hav ing held so, the Apex Court has rejected the claim of the employee therein for t he parity in pay. In Daya Lal (supra) the question of regularization of the temp orary or adhoc or daily wage employee as well as the claim for parity in pay cam e to be considered by the Apex Court. Upon consideration of its earlier pronounc ements including Umadevi (3), the Apex Court in paragraph 12 has summarized the law as under:- (cid:28)(i) on will not issue directions for regularization, absorption or permanent continu ance, unless the employees claiming regularization had been appointed in pursuan ce of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competi tive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not issue a direction for regularization of services of an employee which would be violativ e of the constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of co mpliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularized, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidate s cannot be regularized. Mere continuation of service by a temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage empl (ii) oyee, under cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service would be (cid:28)litigious empl oyment (cid:29). Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a long number of years , let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to clai m regularization, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and s entiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularization in the absenc e of a legal right. (iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularization with a cut-off date (that is a scheme providing that persons who had put in a specified number of y ears of service and continuing in employment as on the cut-off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut-off date, to claim o r contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut-off dat e or seek a direction for framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut- off dates. (iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularization as they are not working against any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorp tion, regularization or permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees. (v) Part-time temporary employees in government-run institutions cannot clai m parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private employment, even if servi ng full time, seek parity in salary with government employees. The right to clai m a particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a s tatute. (cid:29) The Apex Court in clear terms has held that the part-time tempor ary employees in the State-run institutions cannot claim parity in salary with r egular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The right to claim a particular salary against the State must arise under a con tract or under a statute. The petitioners herein were not appointed by following a common recruitm 25. ent rules. Some of them were engaged by the erstwhile ASEB and some by the APDCL on a fixed pay basis, due to exigencies of service and without initiating any p rocess of selection. That being the position, they are not entitled to the parit y in pay with that of the regular Meter Readers and Bill Clerks.

#26. The challenge made to the office memorandum dated 16.06.2012 issued by t he Govt. of Assam, in the present batch of writ petitions, cannot be gone into i n the absence of the claim by any of the temporary, casual or daily wage earner employed in any office of the Govt. of Assam and also in the absence of any mate rial particulars supplied by the petitioners relating to the existence of that c lass of persons in whose favour an exception was curved out in Umadevi (3). That apart, despite the aforesaid office memorandum dated 16.06.2012 issued by the G ovt. of Assam, the APDCL, as held above, is duty bound to consider the cases of the irregularly appointed Meter Readers and Bill Clerks for regularisation as on e time measure, who have completed 10(ten) years or more service as on the date of delivery of judgment in Umadevi (3) without the intervention of any Court or Tribunal and engaged against the sanctioned vacant posts and having requisite qu alification, which has admittedly not been done so far by the APDCL.

#27. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the APDCL is directed to initiate t he process of identification of the Meter Readers and Bill Clerks, if any, who h ave been working for 10(ten) years or more as on 10.04.2006 [date of delivery of judgment in Umadevi (3)] without the intervention of the Courts or Tribunals, e ngaged against the sanctioned vacant posts of Meter Readers and Bill Clerks and having requisite qualification for being recruited as such and to consider their cases for regularization, in terms of the direction issued by the Apex Court in Umadevi (3). The said process shall be initiated forthwith and completed within a period of 6(six) months from today. The APDCL shall for that matter issue not ice in two local dailies, one in English and the other in vernacular (Assamese), published from Guwahati and having wide circulation in the State of Assam, requ iring the Meter Readers and Bill Clerks to file their respective applications, s ubject to fulfillment of the aforesaid conditions, claiming regularization with necessary particulars, fixing a last date for submission of such applications. T he petitioners and other similarly placed persons, who have fulfilled the afores aid conditions, on publication of such notice or even prior to that may file the ir applications furnishing the necessary particulars in support of their claim b efore the General Manager (HR), APDCL, who shall scrutinize such applications an d particulars and take necessary follow up action relating to the claim for regu larization. The APDCL while is allowed to complete the process of recruitment of the Meter Readers and Bill Clerks initiated vide advertisement dated 11.07.2011 , however, is directed to keep 60 posts of Meter Readers and Bill Clerks vacant for consideration for regularization of irregularly engaged Meter Readers and Bi ll Clerks, if any, since the stand taken by the APDCL in the additional affidavi t filed that only 60 Meter Readers and Bill Clerks as on 01.07.2012 have served for 10(ten) years or more, though for the purpose of consideration for regulariz ation in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in Umadevi (3), the cut-off dat e for serving for 10(ten) years or more without the intervention of the Court is 10.04.2006. The remaining vacancies in Meter Readers and Bill Clerks shall be f illed up in accordance with the constitutional scheme of public employment i.e. by following the recruitment rules. It is, however, needless to say that since t he APDCL vide its decision dated 30.06.2012 has decided to give the weightage fo r experience and skill acquired by the outsourced Meter Readers and Bill Clerks apart from the period of service rendered and also to give age relaxation, the s ame shall be extended to the outsourced Meter Readers and Bill Clerks while recr uiting persons against the vacancies of Meter Readers and Bill Clerks by followi ng the constitutional scheme of public employment.