HC rejects contention of 31 temporary employees seeking appointment as VLWs

GANGTOK, 03 July: A group of 31 temporary employees who have been working under the Agriculture and Horticulture Department for periods ranging up to 20 years have been found ineligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Village Level Workers in the department by the High Court of Sikkim under the Sikkim State Direct Recruitment (Special Provision) Rules, 2008. 
It was observed by the Court that the post of Village Level Worker is higher than the posts they are currently holding and with a higher pay scale as well. The Court did however observe that it was a different question whether the 2008 Rules are in consonance with the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The group of petitioners had based their arguments for consideration for the above mentioned posts on the Sikkim State Direct Recruitment (Special Provisions) Rules, 2008, particularly Rule 3 and also on the submission that they also perform duties of Village Level Workers in addition to their own duties. Five of the petitioners have been working as Field Assistants, 8 have been working as Data Recorders and 18 have been working as Lower Division Clerks.
It was noted by the High Court that these positions are lower than that of a Village Level Worker. All 31 have been employed on Muster Roll basis for periods ranging between 14 to 20 years and as per their submissions, possess Class XII pass qualifications in the Arts and Commerce streams.
The bid to be in considered for the posts of Village Level Workers began when the Department of Food Security and Agriculture Development published an employment notice on 20 October, 2011 for filling up of 81 vacancies of Village Level Workers. The minimum qualification required was Class 12 pass with Bio Science which was later altered to Class 12 pass with Agriculture / Horticulture as subjects.  While the petitioners admitted that they did not possess the requisite qualification of Agriculture or Horticulture as subjects they sought consideration under the Direct Recruitment Rules, 2008 with respect to temporary employees working in the government departments.
Rule 3 allows relaxation in matters of eligibility criteria for temporary employees in direct recruitment to posts under certain conditions. Posts so filled by temporary employees are not to exceed 50% of the total number of vacancies and they also have to go through tests and interviews.
Chief Justice P Kohli noted that the rules permitted relaxation with respect to candidates with experience and expertise gained by the temporary employees to be able to compete and that their selection depended on their performance in the test and interviews. He also noted that the vacancies advertised were of a higher rank and pay scale.
Advocate A Moulik, appearing for the petitioners, contended that the Rule 3 does not in any manner restrict the right of the temporary employees to the same category of posts against which they are working and they are entitled to apply and be considered for the higher posts though in relaxation of the eligibility criteria prescribed for the posts.
The CJ however noted that this contention was totally devoid of merit. Sub Rule (4) of Rule 3, it was noted, indicated that a “…temporary employee is eligible to apply in respect to the post to be filled up by direct recruitment in the same department where he/she is working and for the same category of posts. Thus the temporary employee is not entitled to seek consideration against direct recruitment vacancy for a higher post or in any other department.”
The Court noted that the advertised vacancies are higher in status and pay scale and “…on account of embargo created under sub-rule (4) of Rule 3, the petitioners are ineligible to seek their consideration for recruitment against the advertised vacancies even under the 2008 Rules…”.  Accordingly the petition has been dismissed.