Oral Order:

1. Heard Sri Rajendra Bussa, learned Counsel for the Contempt Petitioners and Sri G. Ramana Rao, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.5.

2. The present Contempt Case is filed complaining of inaction on the part of the Respondents in complying with the Order of this Court dated 21.04.2017 in W.P.No.26001 of 2008. The operative portion of the Order of this Court dated 21.04.2017, which according to the Petitioners has not been complied with is usefully extracted hereunder :

                  “In the decision in Uma Devi (1 supra) the Supreme Court held as follows:

                  .....In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services 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 tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub-judice, need not be repined based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.

                  Thus, the Supreme Court opined that there is a justification to consider the case of certain class of employees who have put in 10 years of such service (ad hoc or temporary). Having regard to the facts and submissions, this Court is satisfied that this writ petition can be disposed of, with certain directions.

                  11. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the cases of the petitioners 1, 3 to 11 and 13 for regularization of their services subject to their eligibility as per the precedential guidance in the decision of the Supreme Court (1 supra) and pass appropriate orders in strict accordance with the procedure established by law. The necessary exercise in this regard shall be completed by the respondents as expeditiously as possible and preferably, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to state that any decision taken and the order made by the respondents shall be communicated to the petitioners within a reasonable time.”

3. Respondent No.5 in the present Contempt Case has filed the Counter Affidavit along with certain Proceedings issued by the Commissioner to the Endowment dated 20.07.2018 and Proceeding of the Executive Officer dated 24.08.2018. In the Proceeding of the Commissioner dated 20.07.2018, it has been stated that after verification of the record of the Petitioners, some of the Petitioners who are eligible have been regularized and that the Petitioner Nos.6 & 12 in the Writ Petition have expired. It is also stated that some of the Petitioners have crossed the maximum age limit of 38 years as prescribed under the Statute. Since the Order passed in the Writ Petition, does not deal with relaxation of age, the Commissioner has considered the maximum age limit of 38 years and had regularized such of those persons who are below the said age limit and had declined to regularize the persons who have crossed 38 years of age.

4. Having considered these Proceedings, this Court is of the view that the Respondents herein have complied with the Order of the Court, though with some delay. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Petitioners would submit that some of the Petitioners who have been declined the relief on the ground of exceeding age limit is contrary to law, inasmuch as the Respondents ought to have relaxed the age because such relaxation is permitted as referred in the Judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under :

5. In Para Nos.23 and 24 of the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Khagesh Kumar and Others Vs. Inspector General of Registration and Others: 1995 Supp (4) SCC 182 it is held as under:

                  23. We are, however, of the view that in the event of the recruitment being made on the post of Registration Clerks on regular basis, the petitioners or other similarly placed persons should be given one opportunity of being considered for such appointment and they be given relaxation in age requirement provided for such appointment under the rules. During the process of selection weightage may be given for their experience to the Registration Clerks who have worked on daily-wage basis and suitable guidelines may be framed for that purpose by the Subordinate Services Selection Commission.

                  24. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment of the High Court is upheld with the following directions:

                  (1) The petitioners or other similarly placed persons who were employed as Registration Clerks on daily-wage basis prior to 1-10-1986 shall be considered for regularisation under the provisions of Rule 4 of the Regularisation Rules provided they fulfil the requirements of Rule 4(1)(ii) and they have completed three years' continuous service. The said period of three years' service shall be computed by taking into account the actual period during which the employee had worked as Registration Clerk on daily-wage basis. The period during which such an employee has performed the duties of Registration Clerk under paragraph 101 of the Manual shall be counted as part of service for the purpose of such regularisation.

                  (2) In the event of appointment on regular basis on the post of Registration Clerks, the petitioners or other similarly placed persons who had worked as Registration Clerks on daily-wage basis may be given one opportunity of being considered for such appointment and they be given relaxation in the matter of age requirement prescribed for such appointment under the Rules.

                  (3) The Subordinate Services Selection Commission while making selection for regular appointment to the posts of Registration Clerks shall give weightage for their experience to the Registration Clerks who have worked on daily-wage basis and shall frame suitable guidelines for that purpose.

                  (emphasis supplied)

                  (4) If any of the petitioners or other similarly placed person was required to perform the duties of Registration Clerk as an apprentice under paragraph 101 of the Manual, he may submit a representation to the appropriate authority setting out the full particulars of such employment within three months and the authority concerned, after verifying the correctness of the said claim, shall pass the necessary order for payment of emoluments on daily-wage basis for the period he is found to have so worked on the post of Registration Clerk. The said payment shall be made within a period of three months from the date of submission of the representation.

6. In Keshav Narayan Gupta and Others Vs. Jila Parishad, Shivpuri (MP) and Another : (1998) 9 SCC 78, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Para No.5 as under:

                  5. We, therefore, do not see any reason to take a view different from the view taken by the High Court. It is, however, submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that these appellants have worked for 12 years by now and there are no complaints regarding their service. Hence, if any regular appointments are made, the cases of the appellants should also be considered by waiving, if necessary, the age bar. We see some force in this contention. We, accordingly, direct that when regular appointments to the posts at present occupied by the appellants are made, the cases of the appellants will also be considered along with the other applicants by waiving the age bar in the case of the appellants, if necessary. Until such regular appointments are made the appellants will continue to function on an ad hoc basis as of now. With these directions the appeals are dismissed.

(emphasis supplied)

7. In Para No.23 of the Judgment in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Ashok Ranghba Ambre : (2008) 2 SCC 717, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:

                  “23. We may, however, observe that since the writ petitioner is working with the appellant Corporation since 1984 and by now, he has completed more than two decades, his case for permanency be considered by the Corporation sympathetically. If there is age bar in considering the case of the writ petitioner for permanent appointment, the appellant Corporation will not treat the writ petitioner ineligible on that count in view of the fact that he is already in service of the Corporation since 1984. If there are statutory rules/administrative instructions/guidelines which require minimum educational qualification and/or experience, it is open to the Corporation to insist compliance with such rules/instructions/guidelines. But if there is power of relaxation with the Corporation or any of its officers, the appellant Corporation will consider that aspect as well keeping in view the fact that the writ petitioner was appointed in 1984, has completed service of more than twenty years and is having rich experience.”

                  (emphasis supplied)

8. In Para Nos.32 and 34 of the Judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. Anand Kumar Yadav and Others : (2018) 13 SCC 560, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

                  32. On the one hand, we have the claim of 1.78 lakh persons to be regularised in violation of law, on the other hand is the duty to uphold the rule of law and also to have regard to the right of children in the age of 6 to 14 years to receive quality education from duly qualified teachers. Thus, even if for a stop-gap arrangement teaching may be by unqualified teachers, qualified teachers have to be ultimately appointed. It may be permissible to give some weightage to the experience of Shiksha Mitras or some age relaxation may be possible, mandatory qualifications cannot be dispensed with. Regularisation of Shiksha Mitras as teachers was not permissible. In view of this legal position, our answers are obvious. We do not find any error in the view [Anand Kumar Yadav v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine All 3997 : ILR 2015 All 1108 : (2015) 8 ADJ 338] taken by the High Court.

                  (emphasis supplied)

                  33. Question now is whether in the absence of any right in favour of Shiksha Mitras, they are entitled to any other relief or preference. In the peculiar fact situation, they ought to be given opportunity to be considered for recruitment if they have acquired or they now acquire the requisite qualification in terms of advertisements for recruitment for next two consecutive recruitments. They may also be given suitable age relaxation and some weightage for their experience as may be decided by the authority concerned. Till they avail of this opportunity, the State is at liberty to continue them as Shiksha Mitras on same terms on which they were working prior to their absorption, if the State so decides.

                  (emphasis supplied)

9. In University of Delhi Vs. Delhi University Contract Employees Union and Another : (2021) 16 SCC 71, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Para Nos.23 and 24 as under:

                  23. It is true that, as on the day when the judgment in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] was delivered by this Court, the contract employees had put in just about 3 to 4 years of service. But, as of now, most of them have completed more than 10 years of service on contract basis. Though the benefit of regularisation cannot be granted, a window of opportunity must be given to them to compete with the available talent through public advertisement. A separate and exclusive test meant only for the contract employees will not be an answer as that would confine the zone of consideration to contract employees themselves. The modality suggested by the University, on the other hand, will give them adequate chance and benefit to appear in the ensuing selection.

                  (emphasis supplied)

                  24. We, therefore, direct that all the contract employees concerned engaged by the University be afforded benefits as detailed in Paras 6 and 7 of the affidavit dated 9-3-2021 with the following modifications:

                  24.1. The benefit of age relaxation as contemplated in Para 6 of the affidavit without any qualification must be extended to all the contract employees.

                  24.2. In modification of Para 7 of the affidavit, those employees who were engaged in the year 2011 be given the benefit of 10 marks in the ensuing selection process while for every additional year that a contract employee had put in, benefit of one more mark subject to the ceiling of 8 additional marks be given. In other words, if a contract employee was engaged for the first time in the year 2010, he shall be entitled to the benefit of 11 marks, while one engaged since 2003 shall be given 18 marks, as against the appointee of 2011 who will have the advantage of only 10 marks. The contract appointees of 2012 and 2013 will have the advantage of 9 and 8 marks respectively.

                  24.3. The public notice inviting applications from the candidates shall specifically state that the advantage in terms of the order passed by this Court would be conferred upon the contract employees so that other candidates are put to adequate notice. (emphasis supplied)

                  24.4. All the contract employees shall be entitled to offer their candidature for the ensuing selection in next four weeks and in order to give them sufficient time to prepare, the test shall be undertaken only after three months of the receipt of applications from the candidates.

10. In Choudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and Another Vs. Monika and Others : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3540, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Para Nos.27 and 28 as under:

                  27. An underlying current throughout the Constitution is the theme of “social justice”. The Preamble, as well as Article 38 of the Constitution, enjoins upon the State instrumentalities the duty to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting, as effectively as it may, a social order, in which justice - social, economic and political - shall inform all the institutions of national life and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities. Whenever a conflict arises between the powerful and the powerless, social justice commands the Courts to lean in favour of the weaker and poorer sections where the scales are evenly balanced.

                  28. In this case, for the foregoing reasons, refusal to award any mark for experience to the first respondent would go against the grain of the constitutional duty of ensuring equality and securing social justice for the deprived.

11. Since it is settled law that in appropriate cases, the age can be relaxed, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this Contempt Case by granting liberty to such of those persons who have been denied regularization on the basis of crossing of maximum age limit of 38 years, subject to all just exceptions. No Order as to Costs.

12. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.