A. HAMSAVENI AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 404 · Decided: 03-08-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
A. HAMSA VEN! AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. 
AUGUST 3, 1994 
[R.M. SAHA! AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Article 32-Scope of-Petitioners claiming to be 
helpe1! and working for long time with Electricity Board-Khalid Commission 
constituted for identifying and regula1ising service of helpers-Petitione1! did 
C not appear before commissio1t-Writ Petition seeking direction either to Khalid 
Commission or to appoint any independent body to determine their iden-
tity-Main_tainability of Writ Petiton-Absence of material to establish that 
they were employees of Board or satisfy nomts laid down by commission-Ef-
fect of 
D 
The petitioners have approached this court as individuals claiming 
that they have been working as contract labourers and performing the task 
of helpers with Electricity Board and therefore, they are entitled to be 
regularised. In the year 1986 the Board passed orders prescribing quafica-
tions for various posts including the post of helpers which were challenged 
E by some of the Unions. Parties agreed for appointment of Mr. Justice 
Khalid as one man Commission to examine and recommend the criteria 
for absorbing and regularising the services of helpers. Intervention was 
permitted by the Commission, of even, those who were not parties in the 
writ petition or special leave petition. The petitioners did not approach the 
F 
Commission. Writ Petitions have been filed seeking a direction eitlter to 
the Khalid Commission or to appoint any independent body to determine 
their identity. 
Dismissing the Writ Petition, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Sleeping over the rights, if there were any, with eyes open 
G does not cure laches. In any case when the Commission publicised and it 
became known to every helper of the State that the Commission has been 
constituted for specific purpose of identifying and regularising service of 
helpers then nothing prevented the petitioners from approaching the Com· 
mission if they were help.ers as intervention was permitted by the Commis· 
H sion, of evea, those who were not parties in the writ petition or special leave 
404 
AHAMSAVENI v. STATEOFT.N. 
405 
petition. It was incumbent on the petitioners to have approached the Com-
A 
mission by way of individual applications even if they were not sponsored by 
the Union: The claim of the petitioners that since the commission was 
concerned only with those petitioners who bad approached this court does 
not appear to be correct as the Commission in the report itself bas men-
tioned that even others who had intervened and whose claim was found to B 
be justified were permitted to intervene and were impleaded and the orders 
were passed in their favour as well. (408-H, 409-A to DJ 
1.2. A perusal of the Khalid Commission Report would indicate that 
the Commission had observed that the rule by which certain qualifications 
were prescribed for helpers in 1986 was not justified as it would have C 
resulted in throwing out those who were working for long time. After 
obsei:vtng that the qualification laid down by the Board would not stand 
in the way of those workers who were working since long it proceeded to 
lay down the method to identify such workers and the norms on which they 
could be regularised. Despite these guidelines laid down by the Commis- D 
sion the petitioners have not made any effort by placing any material which 
could establish that they were helpers who were working as such for long 
time even prior to 1986. (409-E, Fl. 
1.3. The claim that petitioners are not seeking any relief except a 
direction either to Khalid Commission or to appoint any independent body 
E 
to determine their identity is misconceived. The purpose of a writ petition 
under Article 32 is not. a fishing or roving enquiry. The petition can succeed 
only if the petitioners make out a case of violation of any fundamental 
right. But what is claimed is a chance to establish their claim. In the 
absence of any material to show that the petitioners were employees of the F 
Board or that they satisfied even the norms laid down by the Commission 
which could entitle them to claim that they were similarly situated, the 
petitioners are not entitled to any relief. (409-G-H] 
R.K. Panda & Ors. v. Steel Authority of India & Ors., J.T. (1994] 4 SC 
151, relied on. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 97 of 
1992 etc. etc. 
(Under Article 32.of the Constitution of India.) 
G 
H 
406 
SUPREME COURT R
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.