Service Law – Regularisation – When not valid – Appellant was appointed in Grade III in non-teaching staff by respondent No.8, a private college– Respondent no.8 was taken over by State Govt. and became a ‘Constituent College’ of Bihar University, whereafter though the appellant was absorbed but no salary was paid –Writ petition thereagainst was dismissed by High Court – Plea of appellant that by a resolution of State Govt. itself, as far back as in 1991, decision was taken to regularise the services but benefit thereof was not extended to appellant even when he fulfills all the conditions contained in the said resolution – Held: Order dtd. 13 Aug. 2003 refusing regularisation specifically stated that the initial appointment of appellant was not in accordance with law – University or the Government had agreed to regularise the services of those employees of the colleges, which had become the Constituent Colleges, only on the condition that their initial appointment was after following the due procedure and that too against the sanctioned post – Impugned order calls for no interference.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The impugned judgment is without any blemish and no interference is called for. In fact, whole premise on which the case is founded by the appellant seems to be incorrect. The cases of persons including the appellant, were duly considered by the University, on the basis of which order dated August 13, 2003 were passed refusing regularisation. This order specifically stated that the initial appointment of the appellant was not in accordance with law. It was made without advertisement and there was no recommendation of panel by the Selection Committee. So much so, the appointments were not made by the competent authority. The University, or for that matter, the Government had agreed to regularise the services of those employees of the colleges, which had become the Constituent Colleges, only on the condition that their initial appointment was after following the due procedure and that too against the sanctioned post. [Para 7][780-D-F]
1.2 Law pertaining to regularisation has now been authoritatively determined by a Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Umadevi case. On the application of law laid down in that case, it is clear that the question of regularisation of daily wager appointed contrary to law does not arise. This ratio of the judgment could not be disputed by the counsel for the appellant as well. That is why she continued to plead that the appointment of the appellant was made after following due procedure and in accordance with law. However, that is not borne from the records. Pertinently, order dated August 13, 2003, vide which the appellant was refused regularisation on the aforesaid ground was not even assailed by the appellant at that time. In Uma Devi, the Court left a small window opened for those who were working on ad hoc/ daily wage basis for more than ten years, to regularise them as a one-time measure. However, that was also subject to the condition that they should have been appointed in duly sanctioned post. Further, while counting their ten years period, those cases were to be excluded where such persons continued to work under the cover of orders of the courts or the tribunal. The High Court has, in the impugned judgment, discussed these nuances and had also referred to the judgment in Uma Devi and held that the benefit of one-time measure suggested in that case could not be extended to the appellant. [Para 8][780-G-H; 781-A-C]
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1 : [2006] 3 SCR 953 – followed.
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.