Service Law: Regularisation in service – Continuity of service for a longer period on a contractual basis – Regularization sought on basis thereof – Held: Merely because employee-driver continued in service for longer period on contractual basis, the order of regularization ought not to have passed more particularly, when a policy decision was taken to avail the services of the driver by the agency/contractor and that the appointment of employee and other similarly situated drivers was not made after any selection procedure – Appointment of the employee was purely on stopgap and on contractual basis – Thus, the High Court erred in ordering regularization, and the order is quashed and set aside – Policy decision.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 When respondent No. 1 was initially appointed in the year 2010, he was appointed on temporarily contractual basis till the tender process to award the contract for availing the services of the driver is completed. In communication dated 29.03.2010, the District Health Officer, Zila Parishad communicated to the Block Development Officer. That thereafter only applications were invited and the appointment of driver of ambulance on contractual basis was made. In the appointment order itself it was specifically provided that if at the said place appointment of Zila Parishad driver is done then the appointment of concerned driver would be terminated. Therefore, at the relevant time neither there was any selection process followed nor it can be said that the appointment of respondent as driver was made after following due procedure as required. It appears that at the relevant time the appointment on contractual basis was made looking to the public interest and to see that the ambulance is not without any driver. At this stage, it is required to be noted that after G.O. issued by the Government, the regular appointments were banned and services of the driver were to be provided by the contractor/agency. It is true that for whatever reason the tender process to award the contract could not be completed and therefore, respondent No. 1 continued to render services as a driver on contractual basis. That the further tender process was started in the month of March, 2021 which was awarded in the month of July, 2021 and therefore, as the contract was awarded to the agency to provide services of the drivers, the services of respondent No. 1 along with other similarly situated drivers were put to an end by order dated 15.07.2021. That thereafter respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition before the High Court praying for regularization which was filed on 31.07.2021, and by that time vide order dated 15.07.2021 the services of respondent No. 1 was put to an end. Despite the above and solely on the ground that respondent No. 1 has rendered his services for longer period the High Court ordered regularization. The High Court also set aside order dated 15.07.2021 though the same was not challenged before the High Court. Without challenging order dated 15.07.2021 the High Court ought not to have set aside order dated 15.07.2021 which was on the award of the contract to the agency. [Para 6 and 6.1][823-C; 824-D, E]
1.3 Merely because respondent No. 1 continued in service for longer period on contractual basis the High Court ought not to have passed the order of regularization more particularly, when a policy decision was taken to avail the services of the driver by the agency/contractor and that the appointment of respondent No. 1 and other similarly situated drivers was not made after any selection procedure. The appointment of respondent No. 1 was purely on stopgap and on contractual basis. Under the circumstances, the High Court committed a very serious error in ordering regularization as well as quashing and setting aside order dated 15.07.2021 by which on the contract being awarded to Security Services Company., the services of respondent No. 1 was put to an end. Thus, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing and setting aside communication dated 15.07.2021 putting an end to services of respondent No. 1 on the contract being awarded to the Security Services Company, and the order directing the appellants to regularize the services of respondent No. 1 as a driver is quashed and set aside. [Para 6.2, 7][825-B-D, H; 826-A]
Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (2020) 17 SCC 393; Sheo Narain Nagar and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2018) 13 SCC 432 : [2017] 11 SCR 138 – distinguished.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.