Supreme Court of India
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.versusG.V. CHANDRASHEKAR
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 267
- Decided
- 25 February 2009
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
Regularisation of employees whose original appointment was illegal and contrary to the constitutional recruitment scheme is not permissible.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined whether employees appointed on an ad‑hoc basis could be regularised in service. The respondents, who had served for more than ten years in various posts, sought regularisation with all consequential benefits after their applications were rejected by the State. The High Court had directed the State to consider their claims, relying on earlier judgments. The Court held that the original appointments were illegal because they contravened the constitutional scheme of recruitment under Articles 14, 16 and 309, and therefore regularisation could not be ordered, following the Constitution Bench decision in Secretary State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi. Consequently, the High Court orders were set aside and the appeals were allowed, but no costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether employees appointed on an ad‑hoc or temporary basis can be regularised when the original appointment violated recruitment rules.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Secretary State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 is binding on lower courts in matters of regularisation.
- Whether the High Court’s direction to the State to consider regularisation claims is ultra vires.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16, s. Article 162, s. Article 309
Subjects
regularisationad‑hoc appointmentservice lawconstitutional lawArticle 14Article 16recruitment rulesillegal appointmentSupreme CourtKarnataka
Judgment
[2009) 3 S.C.R. 624
...
A STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
v.
G.V. CHANDRASHEKAR
(Criminal Appeal No. 1187 of 2009 etc.)
FEBRUARY 25, 2009
B
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]
Service Law - Regularization - Of employees appointed
on ad hoc basis - Permissibility - Held: Initial recruitment
C of the employees was illegal and contrary to constitutional
scheme - Regularization not permissible in view of
Constitution Bench judgment in Uma Devi's case.
Secretary, State of Kamtaka and Ors. vs. Umadevi (3)
D and Ors: 2006 (4) SCC 1, followed.
Mineral Exploration Corpn. Employees' Union vs.
Mineral Exploration Corpn. Ltd. 2006 (6) SCC 310; National
Fertilizers Ltd. and Ors. vs. Somvir Singh 2006 (5) SCC 493;
State of M.P. and Ors. vs. La/it Kumar Verma 2007 (1) SCC
E 575; Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. Ranjodh
Singh and Ors. 2007 (2) SCC 491; Postmaster General,
Kolkata and Ors. vs. Tutu Das (Dutta) 2007 (5) SCC 317 and
Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and Ors. 2008 (10) SCC 1,
relied on.
F
U.P. S.E.B. v. Pooran Chand Pandey2007 (11) SCC 92,
referred to.
-
Case Law Reference:
G 2006 (4) sec 1 Followed. Para 3
2006 (6) sec 310 Relied on. Para 6
2006 (5) sec 493 Relied on. Para 6
H 624
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. v. G.V. 625
CHANDRASHEKAR
2001 (1) sec 575 Relied on. Para 6 A
2001 (2) sec 491 Relied on. Para 6
2001 (5) sec 317 Relied on. Para 6
2ooa (10) sec 1 Relied on. Para 6
B
2001 (11) sec 92 Referred to. Para 6
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nu.
1187 of 2009.
From the JudgmenUOrder dated 9.8.2004 passed by the C
Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in
W.P. No. 31539 of 2004.
WITH
D
C.A.Nos. 1190-1247 of 2009, 1265 of 2009, 1266-1270
of 2009, 1271-1274 of 2009, 1275-1283 of 2009, 1284-1291
of 2009, 1292 of 2009, 1293 of 2009.
Sanjay R. Hegde, Amit Kumar Chawla, A. Rohen Singh
and Vikrant Yadav for the Appellant. E
B. Subrahmanya Prasad, A.S. Bhasme, P.R. Ramasesh,
Girish Ananthamurthy, P.P. Singh, Naresh Kumar, B.
Subrahmanya Prasad and V.N. Raghupathy for the
Respondent. F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHAj J. 1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals involving similar questions of law and G
facts were taken up for hearing together and are being
disposed of by this common judgment. The short question which
arises for consideration herein is as to whether the respondents
herein having beeri appointed on an ad-hoc basis could be
treated to have been regularized in their services.
H
626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
•
A We may notice individual fact of the matters before us:-
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.24124/2004
Respondent herein was appointed as a Typist on 5.9.1985
and worked for more than ten years without break in service.
B Under these circumstances, he sought direction from appellants
herein to regularize his services with all consequential benefits.
His claim was denied by the appellants. Aggrieved by the same,
respondent approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal
which by its order dated 22.9.2003 directed that the question
C of regularization of the services of the respondent be examined
by the appellants with reference to records and decision
thereon be taken within 90 days thereafter. Challenging the
order of the tribunal, appellant-State approached the High Court
which by its order dated 9.8.2004 dismissed the same and
D directed the appellant to consider the claim of the respondent
in terms of the judgment in Premakala Sheffy vs. Common
Cadre Committee.
Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No.24985-25042/2006
E Respondents were Working in the Forest Department for
over ten years as gate watchman, driver, wireless operator and
computer operator and sought for regularization of their services
from the authorities of the department with all consequential -
benefits. Their claim was denied by the appellants. Aggrieved
F by the same, respondents approached the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal which by its order dated 24.9.2003
directed that the question of regularization of the services of the
-
respondent be examined by the appellants with reference to
records and decision thereof may be taken within 90 days.
G Challenging the order of the Tribunal appellant State
•
approached the High Court which dismissed the writ petition
by reason of an order datad 21.7.04 and directed the appellant
to consider the claim of the respondents following the judgment
in Premaka/a Sheffy vs. Common Cadre Committee.
H
.
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. v. G.V. 627
CHANDRASHEKAR [S.B. SINHA, J.]
>
" Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.12223/2006 A
Respondents were appointed as sweepers on 1.4.1980
and 29.4.1978 respectively and sought for regularization of their
services with all consequential benefits as they had put in more
than ten years of service. Their claim was denied by the
B
appellants. Aggrieved by the same, respondents approached
the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal which by its order dated
10.1.2003 directed that regularization of the respondents be
made from the day they had completed 10 years of continuous
service, as against the posts on which they had been irregularly
recruited, with all consequential benefits. Challenging the order
c
of the Tribunal, appellant State approached the High Court, by
---,:, filing a writ petition which dismissed the writ petition by reason
of an order dated 5.1.2004 directing it to consider the claim of
the respondents following the judgment in State of Karnataka,
By Secretary Forest Deparlment, Baga/ore and Ors. vs. T.B. D
Manjunath and Ors. and Premakala Shetty vs. Common
Cadre Committee.
Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C} Nos.15115-15119/2004
E
Respondents herein have been working as Forest
Watchers for more than 10 years, having been inducted as daily
wagers. As their applications for regularization was rejected by
the appellants, they approached the Karnataka Administrative
Tribunal which by its order dated 19.12.2002 directed that in
the event of respondents filing fresh application with supportive F
"'·
evidence, their claim for regularization may be taken up and
appropriate orders thereon may be passed within three months
from the date of representation. Challenging the order of the
Tribunal, appellant State approached the High Court by filing a
writ petition which rejected the writ petition by reason of an G
otder dated 28.1.04 and directing it to consider the claim of
the respondents following the judgment in State of Karnataka,
By Secretary Forest Department, Bangalore and Ors. vs. T.B.
Manjunath and Ors. and Premakala Shetty vs. Common
Cadre Committee. H
'
"
628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
A Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos.16273-1627612004 • •
Respondents have been working as mazdoors and sought
for regularization of their services having completed more than
1Oyears of service. As their applications for regularization was
B denied by the appellants, they approached the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal which by its order dated 24.7.2003
directed that the claim of the respondents be examined and
decided within 90 days from the date of receipt of the order
and in the event of having completed 10 years of service, on
any subsequent date, on any day prior to or after the date of
c filing of the application, the appellants shall consider the claim
for regularization. Challenging the order of the Tribunal, appellant
State approached the High Court, by way of writ which was
rejected by reason of order dated 28.1.2004 and directing it
to consider the claim of the respondents following the judgment
D in State of Karnataka, By Secretary Forest Department,
Bangalore and Ors. vs. T.B. Manjunath and Ors. and
Premakala Shetty vs. Common Cadre Committee.
Civil Appeals arising out of SLP{C} Nos.17865-1787312004
E
Respondents were appointed as forest watcher, literate
Assistant and Board Driver and sought for regularization of their
services with all consequential benefits. As their applications
for regularization was denied by the appellants, they
approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal which
F ordered on 11.11.2002 that the appellants shall consider the
...
claim of the respondents but subject to verification of the claim
of their having completed ten years of continuous service be
examined and decided within 90 days from the date of receipt
of the order. Challenging the order of the Tribunal, appellant
G State approached the High Court by way of a writ petition which
was rejected by reason of order dated 12.1.2004 and directing •
it to consider the claim of the respondents in terms of judgment
in State of Karnataka, By Secretary Forest Department,
Bangalore and Ors. vs. T.B. Manjunath and Ors. and
H Premakala Sheffy vs. Common Cadre Committee and
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. v. G.V. 629
CHANDRASHEKAR [S.B. SINHA, J.]
... ~
directed to comply with the order within two months. A
Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 16527-1653412004
Respondents herein were appointed as first division
assistant, stenographer, watchman and have approached the
KAT for their regularization of their services. The Tribunal by B
way of order dated 23.9.03 allowed the application of the
respondents herein and directed compliance within 90 days
from the date of receipt of the order. Challenging the order of
the Tribunal, appellant State approached the High Court by way
of a writ petition which was rejected by reason of order dated c
17 .3.2004 and directing it to consider the claim of the
respondents.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C} No.1189312006
~
D
Respondent's husband was appointed a Driver on
30.5.1980 and he died on 15.8.92. Respondent sought for
regularization of his services with all consequential benefits. The
Tribunal on 10.7.2003 relying upon the decision on Bidu vs.
State of Kamataka (ILR 2000 KAR 2405) directed to pass
appropriate orders within 90 days, including consideration of. E
claim for compassionate appointment. Challenging the order
of the Tribunal the appellants came up with a writ petition before
the High Court which was dismissed by reason of order dated
9.11.2004, placing reliance on State of Karnataka vs.
-· Kamataka Casual and Daily rated workers' Union (ILR 2001 F
KAR 1178), Himachal Pradesh vs. Suresh Kumar [(AIR 1986
SC 1565] and Randhir Singh, D.S. Nakara, Dharwad etc.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C} No.1189412006
G
Respondents herein were appointed as literate assistant,
•
hand-pump helper, typist and sought for regularization of
services with all consequential benefits from their authorities.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the State,
which challenged the Tribunal's order dated 09.06.2003 and
directed the appellant to consider the claim of the respondents. H
630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
• •
A 3. Indisputably, a Constitution Bench of this Court in
Secretary. State of Kamataka & ors. vs. Umadevi (3) & ors.
[(2006) 4 sec 1) having regard to the provisions contained in
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India opined that any
appointment made in contravention of any recruitment rules
B framed in terms of the proviso appended to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India would be wholly illegal and without
jurisdiction, holding:
"26. With respect, why should the State be allowed to
depart from the normal rule and indulge in temporary
c employment in permanent posts? This Court, in our view,
is bound to insist on the State making regular and proper
recruitments and is bound not to encourage or shut its
eyes to the persistent transgression of the rules of regular
recruitment. The direction to make permanent-the +
D distinction between regularisation and making-permanent,
was not emphasised here-can only encourage the State,
the model employer, to flout its own rules and would confer
undue benefits on a few at the cost of many waiting to
compete. With respect, the direction made in para 50 (of
E SCC) of Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118) is to some
extent inconsistent with the conclusion in para 45 (of SCC)
therein. With great respect, it appears to us that the last
of the directions clearly runs counter to the constitutional
scheme of employment recognised in the earlier part of
F the decision. Really, it cannot be said that this decision has
laid down the law that all ad hoc, temporary or casual
employees engaged without following the regular
·-
recruitment procedure should be made permanent.
33. It is not necessary to notice all the decisions of this
G
Court on this aspect. By and large what emerges is that •
regular recruitment should be insisted upon, only in a
contingency can an ad hoc appointment be made in a
permanent vacancy, but the same should soon be followed
by a regular recruitment and that appointments to non-
H
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. v. G.V. 631
_. CHANDRASHEKAR [S.B. SINHA, J.]
'
available posts should not be taken note of for A
regularisation. The cases directing regularisation have
mainly proceeded on the basis that having permitted the
employee to work for some period, he should be absorbed,
without really laying down any law to that effect, after
discussing the constitutional scheme for public B
employment.
43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality
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
c
upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the
overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements
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 D
necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms
of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among
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 E
- it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or
casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is
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 F
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
or made permanent, merely on the strength of such
continuance, if the original appointment was not made qy G
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
period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc
employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do H
632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
A not acquire any right. The High Courts acting under Article
226 of the Constitution, should not ordinarily issue
directions for absorption, regularisation, or permanent
continuance unless the recruitment itself was made
regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely
B 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
not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made
permanent in the service. In fact, in such cases, the High
c 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
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
D
selection or impose on the State the burden of paying an
employee who is really not required. The courts must be
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
E facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory
mandates."
While saying so, however, the Constitution Bench with a
-
view to give some relief to those employees in respect of whom
F the process of regularization had been completed and by way
of one time measure, held as under :-
"53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be
cases where irregular appointments (not illegal
appointments) as explained in S. V. Narayanappa, R.N.
G
Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para
15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned
vacant posts might have been made and the employees
have continued to work for ten years or more but without
the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The
H
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. v. G.V. 633
CHANDRASHEKAR [S.B. SINHA, J.]
..j (
question of regularisation of the services of such A
employees may have to be considered on merits in the light
of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above
referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context,
the Union of India, the State Governments and their
instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one- B
time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed,
who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned
posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of
tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments
are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that c
require to be filled up, in cases where temporary
employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The
process must be set in motion within six months from this
date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already
• made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on
0
this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of
the constitutional requirement and regularising or making
permanent, those not duly appointed as per the
constitutional scheme."
4. The question which arises for consideration herein is as E
to whether having regard to the aforementioned law as laid
down by the Constitution Bench the respondents herein are
entitled to any relief or not.
Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned counsel appearing on behalf F
of the appellants and Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand,
relied upon two orders passed by this Court; one dated
17.11.2006 in Civil Appeal No. 3956 of 2001 - Madanbi vs.
Director of Horticulture & Ors., wherein all appeals have been G
allowed following Umadevi (supra), whereas in order dated
19.2.2007 in Civil Appeal No.838 of 2007 - State of Kamataka
& Anr. vs. S.K. Halappa & Ors. another Division Bench of this
Court directed as under::-
"We have perused the order passed by the High Court H
634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
A dated 29.3.2004 whereby the Division Bench has directed
that Government will consider each case independently in
accordance with law, within ten weeks from today for
regularization. Suffice it to say that Respondent No.1
(herein) was appointed on a daily wages and he continued
B for quite some time and thereafter he filed writ petition
before the High Court for regularization on permanent basis
with all consequential benefits. The High Court directed the
State to consider the case of Respondent No.1 in
accordance with law and within 10 weeks. Aggrieved
c against this order, the State is in appeal by way of special
leave petition. We have heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record. In our view, the point
invoived in this appeal has been decided by this Court in
the case of Secretary, State of Kamataka and Others vs.
Uma Oevi(3) and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1. The
D
regularization has now been held to be bad in law. But
certain observations have been made in the aforesaid
judgment. Therefore, in the fitness of things, we set aside
the order of the High Court and remit the matter back to
the High Court for fresh consideration in light of the law laid
E down in Uma Devi's case (supra)"
5. Our attention has also been drawn to the order dated
9.6.2003 passed by the learned single judge of the High Court
of Karnataka, Bangalore in Writ Petition Nos. 10332-10342 of
F 2003 (S-Reg) by Mr. Anatha Murthy, which reads as under:-
"1. The respondents are directed to consider the cases of
the petitioners who have completed ten years of continuous
service for regularization subject to the petitioners fulfilling
the eligibility criteria for the posts to which they seek
G
regularization.
2. In the event of any of the petitioners being found not to
have the qualification for regularization to the post in which
they are presently working, they may be considered for
H regularization to the next lower post for which they have
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. v. G.V. 635
CHANDRASHEKAR [S.B. SINHA, J.]
... ' qualification or they should be given a reasonable time for A
acquiring the qualification. The respondents may not
dispense their services merely on the ground that they do
not have necessary qualification.
3. The respondents may also consider the request of the
B
petitioners for extension of regular pay scales applicable
to regular employees discharging the same functions,
wherever such pay scales are not extended already.
4. The respondents are given three months time from today
to comply with the direction given above." c
6. Interpretation of Para 53 in Umadevi's case (supra) had
come up for consideration before this Court in a large number
of decisions.
In Mineral Exploration Corpn. Employees' Union vs. D
Mineral Exploration Corpn. Ltd. [(2006) 6 SCC 310] wherein
this Court, while following Umadevi (3) (supra), invoked para
53 of the said decision to opine:
"39. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to decide the claim E
of the workmen of the Union strictly in accordance with and
in compliance with all the directions given in the judgment
by the Constitution Bench in Secy., State of Kamataka v.
Umadevi (3) (supra) and in particular, paras 53 and 12
relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the F
Union. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter
afresh within 9 months from the date of receipt of this
judgment without being influenced by any of the
observations made by us in this judgment. Both the parties
are at liberty to submit and furnish the details in regard to G
the names of the workmen, nature of the work, pay scales
and the wages drawn by them from time to time and the
transfers of the workmen made from time to time, from
place to place and other necessary and requisite details.
The above details shall be submitted within two months
H
636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 3 S.C.R.
A from the date of the receipt of this judgment before the
Tribunal."
However, in National Fertilizers Ltd. & ors. vs. Somvir
Singh (2006) 5 SCC 493, this Court held:-
B "23. The contention of the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents that the appointments were
irregular and not illegal, cannot be accepted for more than
one reason. They were appointed only on the basis of their
applications. The Recruitment Rules were not followed.
C Even the Selection Committee had not been properly
constituted. In view of the ban on employment, no
recruitment was permissible in law. The reservation policy
adopted by the appellant had not been maintained. Even
cases of minorities had not been given due consideration.
D
xxx xxx xxx
25. Judged by the standards laid down by this Court in the
aforementioned decisions, the appointments of the
respondents are illegal. They do not, thus, have any legal
E right to continue in service.
26. It is true that the respondents had been working for a
long time. It may also be true that they had not been paid
wages on a regular scale of pay. But, they did not hold any
F post. They were, therefore, not entitled to be paid salary
on a regular scale of pay. Furthermore, only because the
respondents have worked for some time, the same by
itself would not be a ground for directing regularization of
their services in view of the decision of this Court in
Umadevi(3)"
G
In State of M.P. & Ors. vs. La/it Kumar Verma {(2007) 1 ..
SCC 575]. this Court held:-
"20. The decision to implement the judgment was evidently
H subject to the decision of this Court. But, the Special Leave
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. v. G.V. 637
CHANDRASHEKAR [S.B. SINHA, J.]
... r
Petition is barred by limitation. The question, inter alia, A
which arises for consideration before us is as to whether
we should condone the "delay or allow the respondent to
continue to occupy the permanent post.
21. The legal position somehow was uncertain before the 8
decision- rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court
in Uma Devi (3) (supra). It has categorically been stated
before us that there was no vacant post in the department
in which the respondent could be reinstated. The State had
also adopted a policy decision regarding regularisation.
The said policy decision has also no application in the case
c
of the respondent. Even otherwise, it would be
unconstitutional being hit by Article 16 of the Constitution
of India."
In Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs. Ranjodh D
Singh & ors., [(2007) 2 SCC 491], this Court held:-
"19. In the instant case, the High Court did not issue a writ
of mandamus on arriving at a finding that the respondents
had a legal right in relation to their claim for regularization, E
which it was obligated to do. It proceeded to issue the
directions only on the basis of the purported policy
decision adopted by means of a circular letter and, as
noticed hereinbefore, even a policy decision adopted in
terms of Article 162 of the Constitution of India in that
F
behalf would be void. Any departmental letter or executive
instruction cannot prevail over statutory rule and
constitutional provisions. Any appointment, thus, made
without following the procedure would be ultravires."
In Postmaster General, Kolkata & Others vs. Tutu Das G
(Dutta} [(2007) 5 SCC 317], this Court held as under-
"20. The statement of law contained in para 53 of
Umadevi (3Jcannot also be invoked in this case. The
question has been considered by this Court in a large
H
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 3 S.C.R.
A number of decisions. We would, however, refer to only a
few of them.
21. In Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board v.
Ranjodh Singh referring to paras 15, 16 and 53 of
Umadevi (3) this Court: (SCC pp. 500-01 paras 17-18)
B
"17. A combined reading of the aforementioned
paragraphs would clearly indicate that what the
Constitution Bench had in mind in directing
regularisation was in relation to such appointments,
c which were irregular in nature and not illegal ones.
18. Distinction between irregularity and illegality is
explicit. It has been so pointed out in National
Fertilizers Ltd. v. Somvir Singh in the following
D terms: (SCC pp. 500-01, paras 23-25)
'23. The contention of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents that
the appointments were irregular and not
illegal, cannot be accepted for more than one
E reason. They were appointed only on the
basis of their applications. The Recruitment
Rules were not followed. Even the Selection
Committee had not been properly
constituted. In view of the ban on
F employment, no recruitment was permissible
in law. The reservation policy adopted by the
appellant had not been maintained. Even
cases of minorities had not been given due
consideration.
G
24. The Constitution Bench thought of
directing regularisation of the services only
of those employees whose appointments
were irregular as explained in State of
Mysore v. S. V. Narayanappa, R.N.
H
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. v. G.V. 639
CHANDRASHEKAR [S.B. SINHA, J.]
_.. r Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah and B.N. A
Nagarajan v. State of Kamataka wherein this
Court observed: [Umadevi (3) case, SCC
p. 24, para 16)
"16. In B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Kamataka 8
this Court clearly held that the words 'regular'
or 'regularisation' do not connote
permanence and cannot be construed so as
to convey an idea of the nature of tenure of
appointments. They are terms calculated to
condone any procedural irregularities and C
are meant to cure only such defects as are
attributable to methodology followed in
making the appointments."
25. Judged by the standards laid down by this Court in the D
aforementioned decisions, the appointments of the
respondents are illegal. They do not, thus, have any legal
right to continue in service.' "
(See also State of M.P. v. Yogesh Chandra Dubey and E
State of M.P. v. La/it Kumar Verma.)
,. The controversy, if any, in our opinion, has been given a
quietus by a three Judge Bench of this Court in Official
Liquidator VS. Dayanand & ors. ((2008) 10 SCC 1), holding:
F
"75. By virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution, the
judgment of the Constitution Bench in Secretary, State of
Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) is binding on all the courts
including this Court till the same is overruled by a larger
Bench. The ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment has G
been followed by different two-Judges Benches for
declining to entertain the claim of regularization of service
made by ad hoc/temporary/ daily wage/casual employees
or for reversing the orders of the High Court granting relief
to such employees - Indian Drugs and Pharamaceutica/s H
640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 3 S.C.R.
A Ltd. v. Workmen [(2007) 1 SCC 408], Gangadhar Pillai
v. Siemens Ltd. [(2007) 1 SCC 533], Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan v. L. V. Subramanyeswara [(2007) 5 SCC
326], Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Dan Bahadur Singh
[(2007) 6 SCC 207]. However, in U.P. SEB v. Pooran
B Chand Pandey (2007) 11 SCC 92 on which reliance has
been placed by Shri Gupta, a two-Judges Bench has
attempted to dilute the Constitution Bench judgment by
suggesting that the said decision cannot be applied to a
case where regularization has been sought for in
c pursuance of Article 14 of the Constitution and that the
same is in conflict with the judgment of the seven-Judges
Bench in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of /ndia[(1978) 1 SCC
248]."
The Court noticed that in U.P. SEB v. Pooran Chandra
D Pandey (supra), this Court held:
"18. We may further point out that a seven-Judge Bench
decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
has held that reasonableness and non-arbitrariness is part
E of Article 14 of the Constitution. It follows that the
Government must act in a reasonable and non-arbitrary
manner otherwise Article 14 of the Constitution would be
violated. Maneka Gandhi case is a decision of a seven-
Judge Bench, whereas Umadevi (3) case is a decision of
F a five-Judge Bench of this Court. It is well settled that a
smaller Bench decision cannot override a larger Bench
decision of the Court. No doubt, Maneka Gandhi case
does not specifically deal with the question of
regularisation of government employees, but the principle
of reasonableness in executive action and the law which
G
it has laid down, in our opinion, is of general application."
(Emphasis supplied)
However, the said observations were not called for.
H
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. v. G.V. 641
CHANDRASHEKAR [S.B. SINHA, J.]
.... r The Bench noticed several judgments/orders of different A
Benches taking a view contrary to Uma Devi (3) (supra) to
opine that those cases were illustrative of non-adherence to the
rule of judicial discipline which is sine qua non for sustaining
the system. It was opined:
B
"90. We are distressed to note that despite several
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 C
the verdict and law laid down by coordinate and even
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 D
litigation. It must be remembered that predictability and
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 E
as the courts at the grass root will not be able to decide
as to which of the judgments lay down the correct law and
which one should be followed.
91. We may add that in our constitutional set up every F
citizen is under a duty to abide by the Constitution and
respect its ideals and institutions. Those who have been
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 G
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
of judicial fraternity who have been bestowed with the
power to adjudicate upon important constitutional and legal H
642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
A 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
the Courts command others to act in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution and rule of law, it is not
B possible to countenance violation of the constitutional
principle by those who are required to lay down the law.
92. In the light of what has been stated above, we deem it
proper to clarify that the comments and observations
made by the two-Judges Bench in U.P. State Electricity
c Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandey (supra) should be read
as obiter and the same should neither be treated as
binding by the High Courts, Tribunals and other judicial
foras nor they should be relied upon or made basis for
bypassing the principles laid down by the Constitution
D Bench."
We feel bound by the observations made therein. Initial
recruitment of the respondents being wholly illegal and contrary
to the constitutional scheme of this country, the impugned
E judgment of the High Court cannot be upheld. It is set aside
accordingly.
7.ln the light of the decision in Uma Devi (3) (supra) and
the interpretation given to Para 53 therein by this Court in the
above mentioned judgments, the appeals are allowed.
F However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall
be no order as to costs.
K.K.T. Appeal disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "regularisation"Sign in to search