Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporationa, Manish Gupta vs' President, Jan Bha

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI D.LINGA RAO Counsel for the Res6,ondents: Ms. SHALINI, AGp FOR FISHERtES WRIT PETITION NO: 5762 0F 201I Between: 0/o. Fisherrna-r levetopment Otfice, W"viJ, f<nammani Oisiici 'l . Bandam Flav Sio Janaki Ramulu, Aged about 35 years, O:c _ Fisherman 2. S- Prabha <ar [l ao, S/o. Lakshmaiah, Aged about 50 \/ear.s c,cc - Fisherman 0/o. Fishermar. )evelopment Omce, Wvii, Xfrihmarn District. 3. Singaram Rarresh, S/o., Chanrdaiatr,-Aged about 37 ys;1,"s Ccc _ Fisherman 0/o. Fishe'ma r Deveropment officd,-- rinnerasairi p-ol,rct, ahr-dirori Kothagudem Di,;r 4. Elalli Mal-renc e r S/o. Gangaram, Aged about 36 yr:ars, O(:c _ Fisherman -- I.T.D.A. Ut.cc- Aditabad Di;trict ..,PETITIONERS AND 1, 2 2 4 5 6 7 8 The State rtl ''r.lanoana rep. .QV its principal Secretirry. Lnirnal Husbandry Depa rtmer t, S ::, :retJriat, f .S., tl'vOiiaU;;:''-' -""' " The Commissir:,r er of Fisheries, Government of Telang;ana, llyrierabad The Assistant Di-ector of Fisheries, Khammam, Khamnram Dislrict. The Fisheries l.)crrelopment Officer, l.T.D.A, Utnoor, Nirmal Disjrict Sri Midium Mnr oa Rairr S/o. . Durga Rao, Kothur Viilage,. .Summadavailv Gram Panchaya . eswaiabpeiMand;[ nyJleriiii"iri rlot]'r1r,:i"Ir'iii;irtf", Desaboina Bha r, prasad. S/o. Srinivasa Rao, Nelkondapally V llage and post and Manda . K"tanrmam District Munesula llaie's r. S/o. Bheemaiah R/o. Kadaruru perddur- r :]ost Kadaruru Mandal, Nirm; t istrict Nimmalabo na L axmana Rao, go. Kuchumansi Ir,4irrdar, Khammain District- "--"- - ''-' .Nageswara Rao. R,o t.laikamgudem, ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith'theHighCourtmaybe pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction mbre particularly one in thenatureofWritofMandamusbydeclaringtheactionoftherespondentslto4 in orally discontinuing the services of the petitioners from the posts of Fishermen by replacing them with unofficial respondents on contract/outso u rcing basis pursuant to Notification dated 16/8/2017 issued by the 1st and 2nd respondents as being arbitrary, illegal, unjust, erroneous' irrational and in violation of Articles '14 and 16 of the Constitution of lndia and further be pleased to hold that the petitionersareentitledtobereinstatedintoserviceasFishermendulyrenewing their contracts with all consequential benefits' IA NO : 't OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated intheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedto directtherespondentstotakebackthepetitionersintoserviceasFishermenon contract basis without reference to the oral termination' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D'LiNGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No'1 to 4: Ms' SHALINI' AGP FOR FISHERIES The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER 7 v" )-47144-2oll and wp-5152_2019 NBK,I THE IIO}i BLE SRT JUSTICE NAGESH BHEET1APAKA WzuT PETITION No.41740 of 2017 AND S'RIT PETITION No.5762 of 201 9 COMNION t}R[IIiR: 1'he pt:tiri,rrL,:rj were appointed as Fishennen on c'ntiolrrcing basis. They passed /r'r r) i SS, and also undefgone Certified Cour:: in I,isheries at Inland F'isheli.:: J laining Centre (IFTC), which ar(. the q ralifications prescribed li: :t ,i ,ointrnent. The i't and 2nd petitionerr; \r,'rr.. i,ppointed in 2008, the 3"' :,i:t tirnrl in 2007, and the 4tn petitioner in l0l I Ii is their case that they h;., r' l-re:i rendering services as per G.O.I(i !c.3.15. dated 09.07.2008; ir:r,l riri)) have been put on artificial break: in:,irr\ice to avoid continuity of :;,-,r', i ::. The respondent aLithorities issued I )ir-rr ifi:ation dated 16.08.20 I7 fi l rn Lrcting 79 ttesh candidates as fisher-n.rcr orr temporary basis, b1, rep ecir.rl; the petitioners who are already wc,rkir s orr tenlporary basis {irr decarl:.s, i itit the unoffi cial respondents. Challt:ns: , r I t tc sa.nte, the petit.ioners lilt:,, ',t,. t>.1o.41740 of 2017. Further, the re:p,:rrrtr:n. aLrthorities discontinued ilte i t.titioners as temporary fishermen on ..,!.: . . nstructions. Challenging tl r, .:r'r: c, the petitioners filed W.P.No.576 jl o1- lr ) 1, r. 2. Heard lvl '. . I inga Rao, leamed counsel fbr the greti tonlrs; and Ms. Shalini, learn,:rl -,\. sisLant Government pleader for the re_rpc,n _.le rts. perused the record.

3. Leamerl i. r r-sel ftrr the petitioners, while makin€. s.t r.iris;ions on the liis*frf rvrit a j1:clr; , t- relies on the -iud-ement of Hon,bjc SLipreine Court in 2 wp-41740-2017 and wp-5t62-2019 NBK, J State of Ilaryana vs- Piara Singhl, Jacob M' Pathuparambil vs' Kerala \ilater Authorifyz, Shri Jaghnath vs' Union of India3' Bhagwati Prasad vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporationa, Manish Gupta vs' President, Jan Bhagidar Samitis' He contends that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that temporary employees cannot be replaced by another set of temporary employees, and that practical experience would aid in effectively discharging the duties and it is harsh to deny confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lack educational qualihcations' and thar an ad hoc cannotbe replaced by another ad ht'tc employee but onty by a regular appointee by foltowing regular procedure prescribed' He contends that the petitioners are rendering services for aimost two decades in temporary capacity, and iurther they are qualihed to perform the duties of fishermen and the authorities seeking to replace them by another set of temporary employees by the impugned notihcation' and discontinuing the petitioners by oral instructions is illegal and arbitrary' 4. Leamed Assistant Gol'emment Pleader' hased on the counter affidavit, would essentially argue that the petitioners' on an earlier occasion f,rledW.P.No.3362Sof20lTcontendingthatsincetheseiectionisbasedon merit. unless the 2nd respondent conducts a qualiffing examination' the appointrnents cannot be made on contract basis; and this Court by order datedll'l0.20lTdismissedthewritpetitionobservingthatthereisnobasis inthecontentionofthepetitioners'counselthatawrittenexaminationhas to be conducted. Learrred Assistant Govemment Pleader further contends 1 AIR 1992 5c 2130 'z AIR 1990 sc 2228 3 writ Petition (Civil) No 651 of 1986 4 ArR 1990 SC 371 5E022 (6) SCALE 780 3 |p 41740 2017 and rvp 5752-2019 NBK, J that the petirion,:,r s \\/ere appointed on ternporary basis (an,,1 to pennanent), and that the ( ,rr, ri:isioner of Fisheries issued a State r'iri: \c tification for unitbrm adrn 't .;r r ation to appoint new candidates t,ase d or r merit; and referring t. rtrr' ser en candidates mentioned at parrgrirph No.5 of the counter, it i. :ort:nded that the candidates have bet:n ;4_pcintecl as per Integrated I-i:rl'c r :'; I)e'elopment Scheme and they are pert'r i,g duties in their respect .' r' , r |acities since 201 7, and therefore thr:re s ,c rner.it in the writ petitior.r,

5. Havinlr . c,n ; dercd the respective submissions anrJ penrse d the record, it may be nct\:rl t ritt the petitioners have been appointeci_ tr;, taking them from their r::,,^.:itir.'c outsourcing agencies, and their. rrlrointnrent was approved b., ,lr : District authority; for instanct:. te ,,Order of Appointmentt(-!i'i r L:tter on outsourcing Basis" (plac:d ir m aterial page No.30 of the r.'rir ,etition) would show that the petitioner Nr.r-Ilandam Ravi from "litt:i, lairam Outsourcing Agencies,, have br:,:r appointed as Fisherman anrl t,s apDointment has been approved by the Distri,X Collector, Khammam. I urtl-,t r. :he petitioners have the academic qu.l fir atio, of 7rh class The l-.;rp: i,:r'Lce certificate in the case of 3.d peti.irnr.r-Singaram Ramesh (at *L:re'irl ,age No.44 of the writ petition) uould show lhat the Fisheries Der t: lcl'rr ncr.rt Officer, Kinnerasaani project h,s :e itil ied that the services of tht: '-rc'i -roner have been utilized in training to _i-i:a. Iiishermen to develop thr: Iis r irrg skills and at seed farm at Kinnerasani pr.oject since 30.03.2015 tc la ( (r.1r015. The educational qualificatir: ns a,d experience certif'rcate docu:n,..r 1:t ]re not disputed by the responden.i;. 6. The pe.rr ()ri lrs are admittedly temporary fisherm,:n u o rking for almost two de.rd:r: ard have the necessary qualificatio,s t,r pe.f-orm their \ ,/' -&. 4 ,:]i wp 41740-2011 and wp 5762 2079 NBK, J ,i jobs. Furthermore, the impugned Notification dated l6'08'2017 was issued for appointme nt of 79 new fishermen on temporary basis' with the same qualifications as possessed by the petitioners' As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Piara Singh (supra)' the petitioners who are temporary workers, and admittedly qualified and possesses necessary skills and expertise in performing the duties of fishermen' cannot be suddenly replaced by another setof fresh temporary workers merely for the purported uniformity of recruitment State-wide' Even in that case the petitioners cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground that they are temporary rvorkers, rl'hetr the nerv incumbents are also appointed as temporary workers. Furthermore, even as per the experience cerlificates issued by the respondent authorities, the petitioners frave also imparted training to Tribal Fishermen in fishing skills and at Seed Farm' Further' the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of Intlia6 referred to the judgment in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi?, and hel<l that selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose' efl'ectively weaponizing it against ernployees who have rendered indispensable services over decades' In the instant case, it is to be noted that the dismissal of earlier writ 7. petition of the petitioners on the ground that the contention that there ought to have been a quaiilying examination could not be countenanced' foq it is anadmittedfactthatthepetitionerswhoaretemporaryltshertnenrendering unblemishedsen,icesfordecades,andalsotrainersinlrshingskillstotribal fishermen, are now souglrt to be replaced by another set of temporary hshermen,moresowhenthepetitionerspossessalltheskillsnecessaryeven as per the impugired notihcation dated l6'08 2017' and therefore 6 2024 tNsc 1034 \.q06) 4 scc 1 i :4*;*Y '.t...i l' 5 \ p 41740_2017 and v,tp 5162_20L9 NBK,I discontinuatic,ir rr'petitioners from seryices is patently ille3r,l e nd cannot be sustained in liL'r, r-rd therefore the writ petitions deserre I. be rllor.ved-

8. Accordinr,J 1. the writ petitions are allowed r.r.,ill.r ; ,lir :ction to the respondent:r.rrh:r'ir-ics to continue the petitioners in their rtsp:ctive duties and wages at :Jrn icable, rvith consequential benefits ar ertitlel as per law No costs. lvljs;,re I,r reous petitions pending, shall stand r:ioscrl. //TRUE COPY// SD/-A.V.S. PRASAD ._\. DEF'U'TYREGISTRAR To, Hyderab:r: ::it tte of Terangana. SECITION OFFICER 1. The Princ,ipa SecretaV,^fn11al Husbandry O,ef".t,rent S.:cretariat, T.S., 2. The Comr.issi rrer of Fisheries, Government of Telanlyana, H1,.derabad. 3. The Assirrtanr l)irector of Fisheries, Khammam, Khamrnanr lisitrict. 4. The Fishrrr.:i I),-.veropment officer, r.T.D.A, Utnoor, Nrrmar lisrtrict. 5. Two CCs to S F I D.L|NGA RAO Advocate tOpUCl ' Iy8":r?: j'i,'li-fo* FISHERIES, High court ror the st;:t,: cr reransana at 7. Two CD Copir;,s ..i -)7 BSR HIGH COUR.'r DATED:2810!;12025 COMMON OFiDER WP.No.41740 of 2017 & WP.No.S762 of 2019 ,-ia - -- ':' ' :. lli -,. ..1.. t.."(\ ?'\ | 3 iun l0Z5 ,1 ,,i'. ',:. ,' I I 4t ': ')'.r" i-.-- '': iti:O I I I I I ALLOWING B.f,TH THE WRIT PETITIONS, WTHOUT CO:STS rr) a44' 9%\x