THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PONDICHERRY KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD AND ANR.versusK. AROQUIA RADJA & ORS.

                        (2013) 4 S.C.R. 562


A     THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PONDICHERRY
     KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD AND ANR.
                                 v.
                  K. AROQUIA RADJA & ORS.
                 (Civil Appeal No. 2323 of 2013)
B                        MARCH 12, 2013
              [G.S. SINGHVI, H.L. GOKHALE AND
               RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.]

C      Service Law - Co-terminus employees (respondents) -
  Entitlement of, to continue in service after cessation of
  engagement of the person with whose engagement their
  services were made co-terminus - Held: Respondents were
  engaged only because their names were sponsored by the
D Chairman of the Pondicherry Khadi and Village Industries
  Board, a statutory body corporate - They did not come into
  the service either through the Employment Exchange or
  through any procedure in which they were required to
  compete against other eligible candidates - Also, the
E respondents had been clearly told that their services were co-
  terminus, and they will have no right to be employed thereafter
  - It was not permissible for them to challenge their dis-
  engagement when the tenure of the Chairman was over -
  Pondicherry Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1980 -
F ss.3 and 15.

       Service Law - Recruitment - Proper channel -
  Requirement of - Held: The requirement of being employed
  through proper channel could not be relaxed in an arbitrary
  and cavalier manner for the benefit of a few persons - This
G would be clearly violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
  Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and
  16.

        The Pondicherry Khadi and Village Industries Board
H                               562
CHIEF EXEC. OFFR., KHADI & VIL. INDUS. BOARD 563
            v. K. AROQUIA RADJA
is a statutory body corporate constituted under Section      A
3 of the Pondicherry Khadi and Village Industries Board
Act, 1980. The Chairman of the Board desired
engagement of certain persons as his personal staff.
There was no provision for any sanctioned post of
personal staff in the Board, yet without obtaining the       B
names sponsored by the Employment Exchange, the
said Chairman engaged five persons as his personal staff
including the four respondents. In view of the persuasion
of the said Chairman, the Government of Puducherry
issued general orders appointing the respondents on co-      c
terminus basis and on a fixed scale of pay. Subsequently,
the Chairman of the Board resigned from his
chairmanship when his term expired, and thereafter, all
the four respondents were relieved from their services.

     The question which arose for consideration in the       D
instant appeal is as to whether the respondents, who
were appointed on a co-terminus basis had any right to
continue in service after the cessation of the engagement
of the Chairman of the Board with whose engagement
their services were made co-terminus.                        E

    Allowing the appeals, the Court

     HELD:1.1. The respondents were engaged only
because their names were sponsored by the then
Chairman of the Pondicherry Khadi and Village Industries     F
Board. They did not come into the service either through
the Employment Exchange or through any procedure in
which they were required to compete against other
eligible candidates. The proposal which was sent to the
Governor for his approval was not sent through the           G
normal routine of the concerned Administrative
machinery, and through the Chief Secretary of
Puducherry. Since the proposal was not routed through
the normal channel of administration, the factual position
with respect to the irregular employment of the              H
    564    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A respondents could not be placed before the Governor.
  The relevant facts such as those relating to their initial
  engagement, availability of sanctioned posts in the same
  category in the Board, relevant rules for engagement of
  the employees etc. could also not be placed before the
B Governor. Even so the proposal itself recorded that the
  respondents had put in just 3V. years of service, and the
  proposal to regularize them had been once turned down
  by the Government. Section 15 of the Board Act clearly
  laid down that the Board was bound by the directions
c given by the Government in the performance of its
  function under the Act. The Governor was not supposed
  to act on his own, but with the aid and advice of the
  Council of Ministers. The question as to whether it will
  result into creation of additional posts and additional
0 financial  liability was required to be referred to the
  Government. Besides, the resolution only recorded the
  request of the Chairman in that behalf. It was not a
  resolution of the Board approving regularization or
  relaxing the existing norms, as a special case. [Para 15]
E [576-F-H; 577-A-D]
       1.2. The respondents were clearly told that their
  services were co-terminus, and they will have no right to
  be employed thereafter. Condition No.4 and 6 of the
  referred terms and condition are very clear in this behalf.
F The respondents had taken the co-terminus appointment
  with full understanding. It was not permissible for them
  to challenge their dis-engagement when the tenure of the
  Chairman was over. [Para 17] [577-H; 578-A-B]
       1.3. Absorption, regularization or permanent
G continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage
  or adhoc employees appointed/recruited and continued
  for long in public employment dehors the constitutional
  scheme of public employment is impermissible and
  violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
H [Para 18] [578-G]
  CHIEF EXEC. OFFR., KHADI & VIL. INDUS. BOARD 565
      v. K. AROQUIA RADJA [H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
      1.4. In the present case, the M.L.A. concerned was to A
 function as the Chairman during the course of his tenure
 as an M.L.A., and had resigned with the announcement
 of the election for the state assembly. A proposal for
 regularization of the co-terminus employees appointed by
 him was directly sent to the Governor without the same B
 being routed through tie State Government. Similar such
 proposals have come to be rejected. The requirement of
 being employed through proper channel could not be
 relaxed in an arbitrary and cavalier manner for the benefit
 of a few persons. This would be clearly violative of C
 Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. [Para 20)
 [579-D-F]

       Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Umadevi (3)
  and Ors. 2006 (4) SCC 1: 2006 (3) SCR 953; State of Gujarat   D
  and Anr. Vs. P.J. Kampavat and Ors. 1992 (3) SCC 226:
. 1992 (2) SCR 845 and Union of India Vs. Dharam Pal 2009
  (4) SCC 170: 2009 (2) SCR 193 - relied on.

     Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District,       E
 A.P. Vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and Ors. 1996 (6) SCC
 216: 1996 (5) Suppl. SCR 73 - referred to.
                     Case Law Reference:
     1996 (5) Suppl. SCR 73 referred to          Para 4         F
     2006 (3) SCR 953           relied on        Para 17, 18
     1992 (2) SCR 845           relied on        Para 19
     2009 (2) SCR 193           relied on        Para 19
                                                                G
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
 2323 of 2013.

     From the Judgment & Order dated 03.08.2011 of the High
 Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A. No. 1131 of 2011.        H
    566      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A                               WITH

    C.A. No. 2324 of 2013.

      R. Venkatramani, V.G. Pragasam, S. Prabu
  Ramasubramanian, Supriya Garg, Neelam Singh, Shodhan
B Babu for the Appellants.

       C. Raghonatha Reddy, C. Salila Reddy, V. Vasanta
    Kumar, AV. Rangam, Richa Bharadwaj for the Respondents.

c         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        H.L. GOKHALE J. 1. Leave Granted in both these
    appeals.

       2. Both these appeals raise the question as to whether the
D employees who are appointed on a co-terminus basis have any
  right to continue in service after the cessation of the
  engagement of the person with whose engagement their
  services were made co-terminus.

E Facts leading to these appeals are this wise:-

       3. The Pondicherry Khadi and Village Industries Board
  (Board for short) is a statutory body corporate constituted
  under Section 3 of the Pondicherry Khadi and Village Industries
F Board Act, 1980 (Board Act for short). The board is running
  various Khadi spinning/weaving/silk centers which provide
  employment opportunities to a large number of persons,
  particularly women. It runs several Khadi Bhandars for the sale
  of Khadi and Village Industries goods produced by the board.
G The board has 219 sanctioned posts at various levels as
  approved by the Government of Puducherry. It has framed
  Recruitment Rules/Standing Orders with respect to each of
  these posts.

          4. Government of India had issued Office Memorandum
H
 CHIEF EXEC. OFFR., KHADI & VIL. INDUS. BOARD 567
     v. K. AROQUIA RADJA [H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
dated 18.5.1998, wherein after referring to the principles laid     A
down by this Court in Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam,
Krishna District, A.P. Vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and Ors.
reported in 1996 (6) sec 216 (which recognises the
recruitment through the employment exchanges as the principle
mode of recruitment), it was directed that all vacancies arising    B
under the Central Government Offices/establishments (including
quasi-government institutions and statutory organizations)
irrespective of the nature and duration (other than those filled
through UPSC), are not only to be notified, but also to be filled
through the Employment Exchange alone. Other permissible            C
sources of recruitment were to be tapped only if the
Employment Exchange concerned issued a Non-availability
Certificate. There can be no departure from this recruitment
procedure unless a different arrangement in this regard has
been previously agreed to in consultation with the Department       D
and the Ministry of Labour (Directorate General, employment
& Training). Similar instructions are also in force requiring
vacancies against posts carrying a basic salary of less than Rs.
500/- per month in Central Public Sector undertaking to be filled
only through Employment Exchange.                                   E

     5. It so transpired that one Shri P. Angalan, assumed the
office of the Chairman of the Board on 12.7.2002, and he
desired engagement of certain persons as his personal staff.
There was no provision for any sanctioned post of personal staff
in the board, yet without obtaining the names sponsored by the      F
Employment Exchange, the said Chairman engaged five
persons as his personal staff viz. the four respondents herein
and one T. Kumar (since deceased).

    6. In view of the persuasion of the said Chairman, the          G
Government of Puducherry issued general orders dated
13.2.2003 appointing the respondents on co-terminus basis.
They were appointed on fixed scale of pay. The appointment
orders of these respondents clearly stated that their service
                                                                    H
    568          SUPREME COURT REPORTS             (2013] 4 S.C.R.


A   shall automatically stand terminated, as soon as the tenure of
    the Ch<1irman is over. The government order approving the
    appointment of these five persons read as follows:-
                "GOVERNMENT OF POND/CHERRY
            DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
B
                 (INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE)
       No. J.1201415120021/nd. & Com.B
    Pondicherry, the 26 Mar 2003
          To
C         The Chief Executive Officer,
          Pondicherry Khadi and Village Industries Board,
          Plot No. 1 & 2, Kamaraj Salai,
          New Saram, Pondicherry
          Sir,
D
                  Sub: DID (Ind & Com.) - Providing personal staff
                  to the Chairman of the Boards/Corporations-
                  Approva/-Conveyed

                   Ref:1 l.D. No.A.520111112002/DP&AR!SS/ (2)
E
                  Dated 13. 02. 2003 of the Department of Personnel
                  and Administrative Reforms (Personnel Wing),
                  Pondicherry

F                 2. Letter No. 1151612002/Estt-I dated 13.03.2003
                  from the Chief Executive Officer, Pondicherry
                  Khadi and Village Industries Board, Pondicherry

          I am directed to invite a kind reference to the l.D. Note
          cited under reference one above.
G
          2. Approval of the Government is hereby conveyed for
          the engagement of the following personal staff by the
          Chairman of the Pondicherry Khadi and Village
          Industries Board on co-terminus basis as requested in
H
CHIEF EXEC. OFFR., KHADI & VIL. INDUS. BOARD 569
    v. K. AROQUIA RADJA [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
      the reference second cited above:-                            A

SI.   Name and Address                    Post        Scale of
No                                                    Pay
1.    K.Aroquia Radja, Slo Kulandai       Stenogra-   Rs. 4500-
      Raj, No. 24, II Cross, Balaji       pher        125-7000      B
      Nagar, Pondicherry-13
2.    G. Ayappan, S/o Gangadharan,        Personal    Rs. 3050-
      No. 29, II Cross, Mariamman         Clerk       75-3950-
      Nagar, Karamanikuppan,                          80-4590
      Pondhicherry-4                                                c
3.    T. Kumar, Slo Thiagarajan,          Staff Car   Rs. 3050-
      Thirupur Kumaran Street,            Driver      75-3950-
      Manjolai, Ariyankuppam,                         80-4590
      Pondicherry-7
4.    P. Rajesekar, S/o               Peon            Rs. 2550-     D
      Puroshothaman,No. 8, Main                       55-2660-
      Road, C.N. Palayam,                             3200
      Arumapathpuram (P.O.)
      Villianur via, Pondicherry-1 O
5.    S. Ramachandran, S/o Subramani, Peon            Rs. 2550-     E
      64, Gangai Amman Kail Street,                   55-2660-
      Piflaichavadi, Pondicherry-14                   3200


      3. These official's services shall automatically stand
      terminated as soon as the Chairman ceases to hold his         F
      post.
      4. Further, it is also requested to send proposals for
      incorporating the provision of personal staff to Chairman
      in the Act/Rules of corporation immediately.
                                                 Yours faithfully   G

                                           (P.M.Emmanuel)
                      Under Secretary to Govt. (Ind. & Com.)"

      7. Based on the above order of approval, a separate office    H
    570       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A   order dated 26.3.2003 was issued concerning the appointment
    of the five persons, containing the terms and conditions which
    were as follows:-

          "
B         TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR ENGAGEMENT OF
          PERSONAL STAFF ON CO-TERMINUS BASIS

          1.     The individual is engaged on co-terminus basis. It
          means that the services of the individual stands
c         automatically terminated as soon as the present
          Chairman ceases to hold his posflceases to be in the
          office of the Chairman.

          2. The terms of this engagement will be co-terminus
D         basis and coincide with the tenure of the Chairman of the
          Board or will be in force till the Chairman requires his
          service whichever is earlier. When the necessity for his
          services ceases, his services stands terminated from this
          office without any prior notice and he will not have any
          claim for regular appointmenf/absorption in Board's
E
          service whatever be the duration of services in the office.

          3. No pay fixation will be done for his engagement. But
          the pay will be claimed on per with the same post and
          scale of pay exists in the government against which he
F         is engaged and he will earn increment, as per Rules,
          every year in the time scale of pay in which he is
          engaged.

          4. No Act/Service Rules/Regulations will be made
G         applicable to the individual for claiming the regular
          appointment in the Board. Because of working in the
          Board on co-terminus basis, he does not have any right
          for claiming regular appointment in the Board.

          5. The engagement is neither temporary/regular no
H
CHIEF EXEC. OFFR., KHADI & VIL. INDUS. BOARD 571
    v. K. AROQUIA RADJA [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]

   adhoc basis. It is only purely co-terminus basis for the       A
   purpose of assisting the Chairman till he hold his post.

   6. Neither legal nor the Board Resolution to be passed
   shall bind over orders issued to the individual to make
   him as a regular employee in the Board in future.              B

   7. Because of working as on Co-terminus basis, the
   Board will not give any preference for selection to any post
   if any recruitment is made in the future.

   8. Whatever be the period the individual served in the         C
   Board it will not be accounted for any purpose.

   9. The individual has no right to go to anywhere viz.
   Higher Authority/Legal Authority to claim the services put
   by him for regular appointment.                                D
  10. The benefits enjoyed by the regular employee will not
  be made applicable to the individual engaged on co-
  terminus basis. Procedure and rules followed for regular
  employees will not be followed in the case of Co-terminus       E
  basis engagement.

  11. On humanitarian ground he will avail casual leave,
  as Board thinks fit.
                                                     '
  12. The individual may claim T.A on humanitarian basis,         F
  if permitted to go on tour by the Chairman since he has
  to incur expenditures for undertaking tour. The services
  will confine only to the office of the Chairman and not to
  the Board.                                       '
                                                                  G
  13. The individual may claim 0. T.A in connection with
  official duty performed by him in the office of the
  Chairman.

  14. The individual is exempted from production of
  Medical Certificate and Character and Antecedents,              H
    572       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A         since it is not a regularltemporaryladhoc appointment
          selected by the Board as per Recruitment Rules!
          Recruitment Committee.

          15. During the tenure of his service, if he is found under
8         any mis-conduct or involved in any type of criminal case,
          his services will be forthwith terminated without any notice.

          16. No other service terms and conditions will be made
          applicable to the individual except the above said
          facilities 0. T.A and 0. T.A.
c
          In the event of the candidate is accepting the above
          terms and conditions for the co-terminus engagement, he
          is directed to report for duty before the undersigned with
          his Bio-data/other testimonies not later than 10 days time
D         of receipt of this office order.



        8. The board, after obtaining the approval from the
  Government as above, issued the necessary appointment
E orders on 22.1.2004 to the five persons concerned, engaging
  them as personal staff retrospectively from 22.7.2002, although
  making clear once again, therein, that these appointments were
  on co-terminus basis. In spite of this position, the then Chairman
  moved a resolution and got it passed in the board on
F 31.8.2005, to send a proposal to the Government for absorption
  of five personal staff in lieu of vacant posts for the Governor's
  approval. However, the Government declined to approve the
  said proposal. The Chairman, therefore, got another resolution
  passed in the Board for absorption of the five persons on
G 17.2.2006. The said Chairman thereafter forwarded a note
  containing 8 paragraphs to the Lt. Governor of Puducherry.
  Paragraphs 5 to 8 of this note read as follows:-

                "5. Accordingly, a proposal was sent to Government
H         for absorption of the above five personal staff taking in
CHIEF EXEC. OFFR., KHADI & VIL. INDUS. BOARD 573
    v. K. AROQUIA RADJA [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
    account the continuous service of 3 Y, years and              A
    experience in the respective posts. Whereas the proposal
    has not been agreed to by the Government on the
    ground that the above appointments were made on co-
    terminus basis with the tenure of the Chairman.
                                                                  B
    6. Again the above subject matter was discussed in the
    50th Board meeting held on 17.02.2006, where it has
    been resolved as follows:

           "The Board was informed that the proposal sent
           earlier for absorption of personal staff of the        C
           Chairman has not been approved by the
           Government. However, Chairman has desired to
           send a separate note with necessary justification
           to government, in relaxation of the existing norms,
           for approval, as a special case. The Board has         D
           endorsed the same.·

    7. Considering the fact that the above proposal involves
    no additional creation of posts involving additional
    financial liability, the power of the board to relax any of   E
    the provisions of recruitment Rules, wherever it is felt
    necessary, length of service put in by the above personal
    staff and in the light of deliberation of the Board, the
    Government is solicited to approve the above proposal
    of absorption of the 5 personal staff of the Chairman, in     F
    relaxation of existing norms, as a special case.

           8. Bio-data of the personal staff are placed in the
    file for kind perusal."

Paragraph 7 of the above note was approved by the then Lt.        G
Governor of Puducherry on 26.2.2006 in spite of the fact that
this time the note was not routed through the concerned
Administrative Secretariat, namely Department of Industrial
Development (Industries & Commerce), and Office of the Chief
                                                                  H
    574     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 4 S.C.R.

A Secretary of the Government of Puducherry.

       9. It is relevant to note that earlier the services of some
  other similarly situated temporary employees of the Legislative
  Assembly Department, Puducherry were not regularized and
  came to be terminated. On their termination they had
8
  approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, and their
  Original Applications were dismissed. Those orders were
  confirmed by the High Court and by this Court by its order
  6.3.2006 in SLP (C) No. 7859-7877 of 2005 in the case of
  llango & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. It is also material to note
C that a similar proposal for regularization of services concerning
  other co-terminus employees, engaged by the very Board, also
  came to be rejected by the Lt. Governor, subsequently, on
  17.6.2008.

D       10. The above proposal for absorption of these five
  persons was kept in abeyance due to the declaration of
  elections of the State Assembly of Puducherry in March 2006.
  The then Chairman P. Angalan resigned from his chairmanship
  when his term expired on•16.4.2006, and thereafter, alongwith
E him all the four respondents and above referred T. Kumar were
  relieved from their services.

        11. The respondents filed a Writ Petition nearly two years
  later bearing No. 3181 of 2008 seeking a direction to
  implement the resolution dated 17.2.2006 and the approval
F dated 26.2.2006. In their Writ Petition they accepted in para 3
  that they were appointed on co-terminus basis. In para 6
  thereof, they stated that they were already dis-engaged from
  their services after the resignation of the Chairman in April
  2006. In spite of these averments in the petition, a Single Judge
G of the High Court of Madras relied upon the fact that an· approval
  had been given to their absorption, and the issue was kept in
  abeyance only till the elections of the year 2006 were over, and
  two years had gone thereafter. Therefore, the learned Single
  Judge by the order dated 26.2.2008, directed that the petitioner
H herein (which was the respondent in that petition) shall act as
CHIEF EXEC. OFFR., KHADI & VIL. !NOUS. BOARD 575
    v. K. AROQUIA RADJA [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
expeditiously, as possible, preferably within a period of 6           A
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order in
accordance with the note of approval. It is material to note that
the petition was disposed of at the admission stage itself, and
the present petitioner did not have any opportunity to file a reply
to place the necessary facts on record such as the recruitment        B
rules and the nature of respondents' engagement.

     12. In view of passing of this order the appellants filed a
Writ Appeal, bearing No. 1131 of 2011 before the Division
Bench of Madras High Court, and placed the necessary
material on record. Yet the Bench gave importance to the fact         C
that board had sought an approval from the Lt. Governor of
Pondicherry which had been granted. Therefore, according to
the Division Bench, there was no error in the order of the Single
Judge directing the implementation of the decision of the board
to absorb the respondents herein. The appeal was                      D
consequently dismissed.

      13. In the meanwhile, the respondents filed another Writ
Petition bearing No. 13428 of 2010 since no order was being
passed by the Board with respect to their absorption in spite         E
of the order passed by the Single Judge in Writ Petition
No.3181 of 2008. During the pendency of this second Writ
Petition, the petitioner passed order dated 10.1.2011 rejecting
the claim of the respondents. Therefore, the respondents
amended the second Writ Petition and challenged this order            F
dated 10.1.2011. This second Writ Petition reached for hearing
after the dismissal of the Appeal Nos. 1131 of 2011 filed by
the appellants herein. That being so, the learned Single Judge
who heard Writ Petition No. 13428 of 2010 allowed the same,
and quashed the order of 10.1.2011, after referring to the            G
dismissal of the Writ Appeal filed by the appellants herein.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and order in that Writ Petition
the appellants have filed the second SLP (C) No.4688 of 2012
which has been heard alongwith SLP (C) No.4669 of 2012
which has been filed to challenge the order of the Division
                                                                      H
    576     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A Bench in Writ Appeal No.1131 of 2011. Both these appeal
  arising out of these two SLPs have been heard and are being
  disposed off together.

    Consideration of the submissions of the rival parties:-
B      14. The principle contention of the appellants is that as
  seen from the above narration of facts, the engagement of the
  respondents was clearly on a co-terminus basis. There was no
  assurance to them that they will be continuing in service after
  the tenure of the Chairman of the Board was over. There are
C recruitment rules and a procedure by which the employees
  under the Board are to be engaged. It was submitted on behalf
  of the appellant that any departure therefrom would mean
  allowing a back door entry in Government Establishment I Quasi
  Government employment which would be violative of Articles
  14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. As against this
  submission of the appellant, it was pointed out by the
  respondents that in their case there has been an approval by
  the Board and then by the Lt. Governor. That being so, there
  was no reason to interfere into the orders passed by the
E Division Bench as well as by the Single Judge in the two
  matters before us directing implementation .

       15. We have noted the submissions of counsel for both the
  parties. It is very clear from the narration of facts as above that
F the respondents were engaged only because their names were
  sponsored by the then Chairman of the Board. They have not
  come into the service either through the Employment Exchange
  or through any procedure in which they were required to
  compete against other eligible candidates. It is also seen that
G the proposal which was sent to the Governor for his approval
  was not sent through the normal routine of the concerned
  Administrative machinery, and through the Chief Secretary of
  Puducherry. Since the proposal was not routed through the
  normal channel of administration, the factual position with
  respect to the irregular employment of the respondents could
H
CHIEF EXEC. OFFR., KHADI & VIL. INDUS. BOARD 577
    v. K. AROQUIA RADJA [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
not be placed before the Governor. The relevant facts such as A
those relating to their initial engagement, availability of
sanctioned posts in the same category in the Board, relevant
rules for engagement of the employees etc. could also not be
placed before the Governor. Even so the proposal itself
recorded that the respondents had put in just 3% years of B
service, and the proposal to regularize them had been once
turned down by the Government. Section 15 of the Board Act
clearly laid down that the Board was bound by the directions
given by the Government in the performance of its function under
the Act. The Governor was not supposed to act on his own, but C
with the aid and advice of the Council of Minister5. The question
as to whether it will result into creation of additional posts and
additional financial liability was required to be referred to the
Government. Besides, the resolution only recorded the request
of the Chairman in that behalf. It was not a resolution of the
Board approving regularization or relaxing the existing norms, D
as a special case.

      16. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition
No.3181 of 2008 at the admission stage itself without affording
an opportunity to the appellants to place these relevant facts       E
before the Court, which led to an erroneous decision. If the
petition was to be allowed, the least that was expected was to
permit the respondents to the petition to file their response, and
then take the decision one way or the other. Again the Division
Bench also did not look into the substantive issue before it         F
although the relevant material was placed before the bench in
the writ appeal. The learned Single Judge who heard the
second writ petition merely followed the decision of the Division
Bench in writ appeal.
                                                                     G
     17. The learned Single Judge who heard the Writ Petition
No.3181 of 2008 and also the Division Bench which heard the
writ appeal could not have ignored that the respondents were
clearly told that their services were co-terminus, and they will
have no right to be employed thereafter. Condition No.4 and 6        H
    578      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A of the earlier referred terms and condition are very clear in this
  behalf. The respondents had taken the co-terminus
  appointment with full understanding. It was not permissible for
  them to challenge their dis-engagement when the tenure of the
  Chairman was over. What a Constitution Bench of this Court
B has observed in paragraph 45 of Secretary, State of Kamataka
  and Ors. Vs. Umadevi (3) and Ors. reported in 2006 (4) SCC
  1, is quite apt. The said para reads as follows:-

                "45. While directing that appointments, temporary
          or casual, be regularised or made permanent, the courls ·
c --      are swayed by the fact that the person concerned has
          worked for some time and in some cases for a
          considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who
          accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in
          nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He
D         accepts the employment with open eyes. It may be true
          that he is not in a position to bargain-not at arm's
          length-since he might have been searching for some
          employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts
          whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would not
E         be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of
          appointment and to take the view that a person who has
          temporarily or casually got employed should be directed
          to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will be
          creating another mode of public appointment which is not
F         permissible ...... ... "

        18. As stated by this Court in Umadevi (supra), absorption,
  regularization or permanent continuance of temporary,
  contractual, casual, daily-wage or adhoc employees appointed/
G recruited and continued for long in public employment dehors
  the constitutional scheme of public employment is impermissible
  and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
  As recorded in paragraph 53 of the report in SCC, this Court
  has allowed as a one time measure, regularization of services
H of irregularly appointed persons, provided they have worked for
CHIEF EXEC. OFFR., KHADI & VIL. INDUS. BOARD 579
    v. K. AROQUIA RADJA [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts. That is also not the A
case in the present matter.

     19. In another judgment of this Court in State of Gujarat
and Anr. Vs. P.J. Kampavat and Ors. reported in 1992 (3) SCC
226, this Court had occasion to look into a similar situation. That B
was a case where persons concerned were appointed directly
in the office of the Chief Minister on purely temporary basis for
a limited period up to the tenure of the Chief Minister. This Court
held that such an appointment was purely a contractual one, and
it was co-terminus with that of the Chief Minister's tenure, and C
such service came to an end simultaneously with the end of
tenure of the Chief Minister. No separate order of termination
or even a notice was necessary for putting an end to such a
service.

     20. We have to note that in the present case the M.L.A. D
concerned was to function as the Chairman during the course
of his tenure as an M.L.A., and had resigned with the
announcement of the election for the state assembly. A
proposal for regularization of the co-terminus employees
appointed by him was directly sent to the Governor without the E
same being routed through the State Government. Similar such
proposals have come to be rejected. As observed by this Court
in Union of India Vs. Dharam Pal reported in 2009 (4) SCC
170, the requirement of being employed through proper channel
could not be relaxed in an arbitrary and cavalier manner for the F
benefit of a few persons. This would be clearly violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

     21. This being the scenario, the learned Single Judge as
well as the Division Bench, and the subsequent learned Single G
Judge have erred in passing the orders that they have. The High
Court has erred in deciding Writ Petition No.3181 of 2008 by
directing the board to implement the resolution/note issued by
the Chairman and approved by the Governor. The Division·
Bench has also erred in leaving the order passed by the learned
                                                                   H
    580      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A   Single Judge in that petition undisturbed. So has the learned
    Single Judge erred who heard the second Writ Petition.

        22. For the reasons stated above both these appeals are
  allowed, and the impugned judgments and orders in Writ
8 Appeal No. 1131 of 2011 as well as one in Writ Petition No.
  3181 of 2008 and Writ Petition No. 13428 of 2010 are set-
  aside. Writ Petition No. 3181of2008 and 13428 of 2010 shall
  stand dismissed. Consequently the Interim Applications in both
  these appeals, and the Contempt Petition No.1841 of 2011
C filed by the respondent in the Madras High Court will also stand
  disposed of. In the facts of the present case we do not pass
  any order as to the costs.

    B.B.B.                                     Appeals allowed.