Regularization and clear vacancies: final Tribunal orders were protected, but relief failed where vacancy was absent.

The Court held that final Tribunal directions granting regularization could not be disturbed in collateral writ proceedings where those orders had not been challenged, and the High Court was wrong to rely on P. Venkata Kumari because it concerned a different enactment. It also held that regularization under G.O. Ms. No. 212 dated 22.4.1994 is available only against clear vacancies; where no clear vacancy existed, a blanket direction to regularize could not stand. The Tribunal's earlier final orders were sustained in one matter, but similar relief in the connected appeals was set aside for want of vacancies.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court was justified in disturbing the Tribunal's final orders directing regularization of service when those orders had not been challenged; (ii) whether regularization could be directed under G.O. Ms. No.212 dated 22.4.1994 in the absence of clear vacancies.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in disturbing the Tribunal's final orders directing regularization of service when those orders had not been challenged.

Analysis: The Tribunal had already adjudicated the claim for regularization and issued directions in earlier proceedings. Those orders had attained finality and were not open to collateral interference in the writ proceedings. The reliance placed by the High Court on the decision in P. Venkata Kumari was held to be misplaced because that case dealt with the constitutional validity of a different enactment and did not govern the respondents' claim.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in interfering with the Tribunal's final directions for regularization; the direction to carry out the Tribunal's order was sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether regularization could be directed under G.O. Ms. No.212 dated 22.4.1994 in the absence of clear vacancies.

Analysis: The Government Order contemplated regularization of daily wagers and similarly placed employees only against clear vacancies. In the connected matters, the appellants had consistently maintained that no clear vacancy was available in the department, and that factual position was accepted as decisive. In that situation, a blanket direction to consider or regularize the respondents' services under the Government Order could not be sustained.

Conclusion: Regularization under G.O. Ms. No.212 dated 22.4.1994 could not be ordered without clear vacancies; the High Court's directions in the connected appeals were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The decision upheld regularization relief in the appeal where the Tribunal's earlier final orders had to be implemented, but rejected similar relief in the connected appeals because the prerequisite of clear vacancies was absent.

---