Supreme Court of India
MAN SINGHversusCOMMNR. GARHWAL MANDAL, PAURI & ORS.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 298
- Decided
- 3 March 2009
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the rectified selection list must be adhered to, and the appellant, being a temporary employee, is not entitled to regular appointment despite his long service.
Summary
Man Singh had been employed intermittently as a peon on short‑term contracts from 1989 to 1996. In 1995 his name was placed on the wait‑list for a regular post after being called from the Employment Exchange, but was later removed and replaced by another candidate who had higher marks. His services were terminated in April 1996 and his writ petition against the termination was dismissed by the High Court. The Supreme Court examined whether the rectification of the selection list was permissible, whether long service created any right to regularisation, and whether the Employment Exchange’s sponsorship was required. The Court held that the selection list, once corrected in accordance with the recruitment rules, must be followed; a temporary employee does not acquire an indefeasible right to become permanent, and the validity of the list is limited to one year unless extended. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the correction of the selection list after a mistake is permissible and binding.
- Whether a temporary employee with long service is entitled to regular appointment over a candidate selected as per rules.
- Whether the lack of sponsorship by the Employment Exchange bars consideration of the appellant’s candidature.
- Whether the one‑year validity of a selection list precludes appointment after its expiry.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16
Subjects
service lawregular appointmentselection listemployment exchangetemporary employeeregularisationequalityconstitutional lawArticles 14 and 16
Judgment
[2009) 3 S.C.R. 1102
A MAN SINGH
v.
COMMNR. GARHWAL MANDAL, PAURI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1366 of 2009)
MARCH 3, 2009
8
[S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]
Service Law - Appointment/Selection - Names called >·
from Employment Exchange for Selection - Short term
C employee with the employer also applied for regular
appointment on the post - Initially placed in selection list -
Later, on rectification of mistake, his name removed from the
list - His services terminated - Held: Selection having been
made in accordance with rules after rectification of mistake,
D exception thereto cannot be taken - The candidate with long
service cannot be given preference over the candidate
selected as per rules.
Appellant was working with the respondent as a
E peon on a short term vacancy from time to time from 1989
to 1996. In 1995, the names were called from Employment
Exchange for regular appointment to the post. Appellant
also applied for the same. Initially his name was at serial
No. 3 of wait list of selection. But later his name was
deleted and name of another candidate was inserted at
F its place. Thereafter, appellant's services were terminated.
His challenge to the termination order in writ petition was
dismissed by High Court. Hence the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
G
HELD: 1.1 Appellant does not attribute any ma/a fide
to the respondent. It is not his case that the other
candidate in fact, had not secured higher marks than
him. If a mistake was committed, the respondents were
H 1102
MAN SINGH v. COMMNR. GARHWAL MANDAL, 1103
PAURI & ORS.
entitled to rectify the same. If those mistakes have been A
rectified and the irregularities have been removed by
preparing the selection list strictly in accordance with
rules, no exception thereto can be taken. All persons
similarly situated under constitutional scheme are
required to be treated equally. [Para 6) [1106~8-C] B
"' 1.2. The other candidate was wrongly placed in the
category of reserved candidates as he had competed
with the general category candidates. Appellant,
indisputably, had been appointed on periodical basis. He
might have continued to work as a Peon for a long time
c
but by reason thereof, he did not acquire any indefeasible
right to become a permanent employee of the
department. [Para 7) [1106-B; 1106-C]
1.3. Respondent had filled up the vacancies in terms D
of the rules. Furthermore, appellant's name was not
sponsored by the Employment Exchange. In absence of
any proof that his name was sponsored by the
Employment Exchange, the same could not have been
considered. [Para 11) [1109-F, G] E
Arun Tiwari and Ors. v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh and
Ors. AIR 1998 SC 331 and Avtar Singh Hit v. Delhi Sikh
Gurdwara Management Committee and Ors. 2006 (8) SCC
487, referred to.
F
1.4. Regularization of services, is impermissible in
law. Though belatedly respondents had taken steps to fill
up the existing vacancies in terms of the recruitment rules
and upon following the constitutional scheme of equality
as adumbratet' under Articles 14 and 16 of the G
~
Constitution of India. The plea of the appellant that as he
has been working for a long time, should have been given
preference over the other candidate cannot be accepted.
[Paras 7 and 8] [1106-F, G)
H
1104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 3 S.C.R.
A Secretary, State of Kamataka and Ors. v. Umadevi (3) and
· Ors. 2006 (4) SCC 1, followed.
Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Ors. 2008 (10) SCC
1, relied on.
B Karnataka State Private College Stop-Gap Lecturers
Association v. State of Kamataka and Ors. AIR 1992 SC 677,
. distinguished.
1.5. Even if the other candidate is no longer in service
c as stated before the Court; that by itself may not be a
ground, particularly at this distant time, to direct
appointment of the appellant. Recruitment process
· started in the year 1995. A select list was prepared.
Ordinarily, the life of a select list is one year. In absence
0 of any notification extending the validity of such select
list, no appointment can be directed to be made from
such select list. [Para 12) [1110-C]
Case Law Reference:
E 2006 (4) sec 1 Followed. Para 8
2008 (10) sec 1 Relied on. Para 9
AIR 1992 SC 677 Distinguished. Para 10
AIR 1998 SC 331 Referred to. Para 11
F
2006 (8) sec 487 Referred to. Para 11
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
1366 of 2009.
G From the Judgment & Order dated 3.12.2002 of the High
Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital Civil Misc, Writ Petition No.
6232 (S/S)/2001.
R. Krishnamorthi and Mohan Pandey for the Appellants.
H
MAN SINGH v. COMMNR. GARHWAL MANDAL, 1105
PAURI & ORS.
> Abhay Prakash Sahay and Jatinder Kumar Bhatia for the A
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J.1. Leave granted.
B
2. Appellant had been appointed as a Peon on a short
. term vacancy from time to time for a fixed period. Such
appointments were said to have been made on diverse dates,
namely - on 9.5.1989, 20.9.2989, 4.12.1989, 2.2.1991,
2.3.1991, 29.6.1991, 27.8.1991, 11.12.1991, 1.1.1992, c
31.3.1992, 26.8.1992, 5.3.1993, 2.8.1993, 28.9.1993,
4.12.1993, 4.1.1994, 23.5.1994, 6.9.1995, 6.11.1995 and
15.2.1996.
Names were called for from Employment Exchange in the
D
year 1995. Appellant applied for the post of Peon which fell
vacant in the District of Chamoli. A Selection Committee was
constituted for selection of the candidates. Appellant is said to
have appeared before the Selection Committee. The name of
the appellant was placed at serial No.3 in the general category.
However, on or about 29.5.1995, the name of the appellant was E
deleted and in his place the name of one Mohan Lal was
inserted. Appellant's services were terminated on 5.4.1996.
3. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, he filed a writ
petition on or about 3.12.2002 before the High Court of F
~·
Uttaranchal which by reason of the impugned judgment has
been dismissed.
4. Mr. R. Krishnamorthi, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant, would urge that appellant having been
G
working since 1989 continuously, his services could not have
been terminated particularly in view of the fact that he was
selected for regular appointment by a selection committee.
5. It has been brought on record that the name of the
appellant was wrongly placed at serial No.3 in the wait-list as H
1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
A Mohal Lal had secured higher marks than the appellant. As
there were only three vacancies, appellant's name had to be
deleted.
6. Appellant does not attribute any ma/a fide to the
respondent. It is not his case that Mohan Lal, in fact, had not
8
secured higher marks than him. If a mistake was committed,
the respondents were entitled to rectify the same.
All persons similarly situated under our constitutional
scheme are required to be treated equally. Some mistakes
C were found in the selection list. If those mistakes have been
rectified and the irregularities have been removed by preparing
the selection list strictly in accordance with rules, no exception
thereto can be taken.
D 7. Mohan Lal was wrongly placed in the category of
reserved candidates as he had competed with the general
category candidates. Appellant, indisputably, had been
appointed on periodical basis. He might have continued to work
as a Peon for a long time but by reason thereof, he did not
E acquire any indefeasible right to become a permanent
employee of the department.
Regularization of services, as is well-known, is ,
impermissible in law. Though belatedly respondents had taken
steps to fill up the existing vacancies in terms of the recruitment
F rules and upon following the constitutional scheme of equality
as adumbrated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India.
8. Contention of the appellant that as he has been working
G for a long time, should have been given preference over said
Shri Mohan Lal, in our considered opinion, cannot be accepted.
In Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) &
Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 1], a Constitution Bench of this Court has
laid down the law in the following terms :
H
MAN SINGH v. COMMNR. GARHWAL MANDAL, PAURI 1107
& ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
>
,-
I "43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality A
in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution
and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a
court would certainly be disabled from passing an order
upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the
overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements B
of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution.
.. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public
employment, this Court while laying down the law, has
necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms
of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among c
qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on
the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the
appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if
it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or •
..-
casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is
~·
D
discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not
claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of
appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely
because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker
is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment,
he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service E
or made permanent, merely on the strength of such
\ continuance, if the original appointment was not made by
following a due process of selection as envisaged by the
relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular
recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose F
period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc
employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do
not acquire any right. The High Courts acting under Article
226 of the Constitution, should not ordinarily issue
directions for absorption, regularisation, or permanent G
• continuance unless the recruitment itself was made
regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely
because an employee had continued under cover of an
order of the court, which we have described as "litigious
employment" in the earlier part of the judgment, he would H
1108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
A not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made
permanent in the service. In fact. in such cases, the High
Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions,
since, after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it
is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould
B the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will
be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to continue
his employment would hold up the regular procedure for
selection or impose on the State the burden of paying an
employee who is really not required. The courts must be
c. careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the
economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its
instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to
facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory
mandates."
D 9. We are bound by the said decision as opined in Official
Liquidator v. Dayanand & Ors. [(2008) 10 SCC 1], wherein it
has categorically been laid down :
"90. We are distressed to note that despite several
E pronouncements on the subject, there is substantial
increase in the number of cases involving violation of the
basics of judicial discipline. The learned Single Judges
and Benches of the High Courts refuse to follow and accept
the verdict and law laid down by coordinate and even
F larger Benches by citing minor difference in the facts as
the ground for doing so. Therefore, it has become
necessary to reiterate that disrespect to constitutional
ethos and breach of discipline have grave impact on the
credibility of judicial institution and encourages chance
litigation. It must be remembered that predictability and
G
certainty is an important hallmark of judicial jurisprudence
developed in this country in last six decades and increase
in the frequency of conflicting judgments of the superior
judiciary will do incalculable harm to the system inasmuch
as the courts at the grass root will not be able to decide
H
MAN SINGH v. COMMNR. GARHWAL MANDAL, PAURI & 1109
ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
:.
as to which of the judgment lay down the correct law and A
which one should be followed.
91. We may add that in our constitutional set up every
citizen is under a duty to abide by the Constitution and
respect its ideals and institutions. Those who have been B
entrusted with the task of administering the system and
=- operating various constituents of the State and who take
~
oath to act in accordance with the Constitution and uphold
the same, have to set an example by exhibiting total
commitment to the Constitutional ideals. This principle is
required to be observed with greater rigour by the members
c
of judicial fraternity who have been bestowed with the
power to adjudicate upon important constitutional and legal
#
issues and protect and preserve rights of the individuals
and society as a whole. Discipline is sine qua non for
~
effective and efficient functioning of the judicial system. If D
the Courts command others to act in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution and rule of law, it is not
possible to countenance violation of the constitutional
principle by those who are required to lay down the law."
E
10. Reliance placed by Mr. Krishnamorthi on Karnataka
{ -
State Private College Stop-Gap Lecturers Association v. State
of Karnataka & Ors. [AIR 1992 SC 677] is wholly misplaced. It
is not a case where one set of ad hoc recruits was being
replaced by another set of ad hoc recruits. F
-<
' 11. Respondent had filled up the vacancies in terms of the
rules. Furthermore, appellant's name was not sponsored by the
Employment Exchange. He might have got himself registered
in the Employment Exchange but in absence of any proof that
his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, the G
t same could not have been considered.
The Employment Exchange sponsors the names of the
candidates in terms of the provisions laid down in the
Employment Exchange Manual. The Employment Exchange H
1110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 3 S.C.R.
A authorities are bound to sponsor the names in accordance with
seniority. Names of a candidate can be sponsored only when
his turn comes and not prior thereto {[See Arun Tiwari & Ors.
v. Zita Mansavi Shikshak Sangh & Ors. [AIR 1998 SC 331];
Avtar Singh Hit v. Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management
a Committee and Ors. [(2006) 8 SCC 487)}
12. Mr. Krishnamorthi submits that Shri Mohan Lal is no •
longer in service. That by itself may not be a ground, particularly
at this distant time, to direct appointment of the appellant.
Recruitment process started in the year 1995. A select list was
C prepared. Ordinarily, the life of a select list is one year. In
absence of any notification extending the validity of such select
list, no appointment can be directed to be made from such
select list.
D 13. There is, thus, no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed
accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of this
case, there shall be no order as to costs.
K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "service law"Sign in to search