1. Termination of service of a local candidate — Dispute over eligibility for regularization under Government Order — Applicability of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1966 Supreme(SC) 168
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. SUBBA RAO, C.J.I. AND J.M. SHELAT, J.
State of Mysore and another, Appellants
Versus
S. Narayanappa, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 1420 of 1966,
D/- 22-8- 1966.
Advocates appeared
M/s. S. T. Desai and B. R. L. Iyengar Senior Advocates. (Mr. B. R. G. K. Achar, Advocate, with them), for Appellants; M/s. R. B. Datar, Anil Kumar Sablok and B. P. Singh. Advocates, for Respondents.
Advocates:
ANIL SABLOK, B.P.SINGH, B.R.G.K.Achar, B.R.L.Iyengar, R.B.Batar, S.T.DESAI
ANIL SABLOK, B.P.SINGH, B.R.G.K.Achar, B.R.L.Iyengar, R.B.Batar, S.T.DESAI
Regularisation of temporary government servants under an order requiring "continuous service" necessitates an uninterrupted tenure; any break, however short, disqualifies the candidate if the order explicitly prohibits the condonation of such breaks.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 311(2) - Service Law - Regularisation of temporary employees - Interpretation of Government Order - Continuity of service - Requirement for regularisation - A candidate claiming regularisation under a government order must satisfy the condition of continuous service from a specified date until the date of the order - If the order stipulates that services shall be regularised from the date of appointment from which service is continuous, and explicitly states that breaks in service will not be condoned even for short periods, then any break in service disqualifies the candidate from such regularisation (Para 10).
(B) Service Law - Benefits of regularisation - Continuity of service is a prerequisite for the purpose of calculating leave, pension, and increments; without continuous service, such benefits cannot be granted (Para 10).
(C) Service Law - Regularisation vs. Permanence - Regularisation of an appointment does not necessarily equate to permanence, as permanence typically requires a separate process of confirmation (Para 8).
Facts of the case:
A temporary government servant, appointed as a local candidate, had a one-day break in service. The State Government terminated the service, contending that the employee was not entitled to regularisation under a specific government order because the service was not continuous. The lower court had quashed the termination, interpreting the government order to mean that regularisation only required the employee to be in service on two specific dates, regardless of whether the service in the intervening period was continuous.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the express words of the government order required continuity of service from a specific date until the date of the order. The provision stating that breaks in service would not be condoned, however short, clearly indicates that uninterrupted service is a mandatory condition for regularisation.
Issues: Whether the government order for regularisation of local candidates required continuous service or merely required the candidate to be in service on two specific dates.
Ratio Decidendi: The proper interpretation of the regularisation order is that a local candidate must be initially appointed before the cutoff date, be in service on the specified date, and continue in service without any break until the date of the order. A construction that ignores the requirement of continuity would be unjust to candidates who were regularly recruited and maintained continuous service.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Respondent claimed entitlement to regularization and constitutional protection against termination — State contended that lack of continuous service disqualified the respondent from regularization and protection. (Para 6 )
3. The Government Order requires continuous service from the specified start date to the date of regularization to ensure fairness and consistency with pension and increment rules. (Para 10 )
4. Regularization of local candidates under the Government Order requires initial appointment before the cutoff date and continuous service without breaks until the date of the order. (Para 10 )
5. Appeal dismissed without interference in the High Court's order due to the State Government's assurance not to adversely affect the respondent's service. (Para 11 )
6. What are the conditions for regularization of local candidates under the Government Order?
A local candidate must be initially appointed prior to December 31, 1959, be in service on January 1, 1960, and continue in service without any break until the date of the regularization order. (Para 10 )
7. Does the requirement of continuous service apply to the period between the initial appointment and the regularization order?
Yes, continuity of service from January 1, 1960, until the date of the order is a mandatory condition for regularization, and breaks in service, however short, are not condoned. (Para 10 )
8. How does the requirement of continuous service relate to benefits like pension and increments?
Local service counts for leave, pension, and increments only if the service is continuous, as increments and pension calculations depend on uninterrupted service. (Para 10 )
Judgement
SHALAT, J. : This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and Order of the High Court of Mysore quashing the memorandum, dated July 4, 1963 whereby the State Government terminated the service of the respondent. The only question arising in this appeal is one of interpretation of the Government Order No. GAD 46 SRR, dated September 22, 1961.
2. The respondent entered Government service as an officiating computor in the Government Press on March 11, 1958 and continued in that post until September 1, 1958. He was thereafter appointed from time to time in officiating capacity in different posts though in the same department until December 3, 1959 when he was appointed as a proof examiner. He continued in that post until February 28, 1961. According to the appellants there was break in his service on March 1, 1961 as his service was terminated on February 28, 1961 and he was once again appointed on March 2, 1961 as a second division clerk (Industrial). He continued in that post until July 4, 1961 when the impugned order terminating his service was passed. The first of March 1961 on which it was said there was break in his service, was a holiday.
3. There is no dispute that the respondent was throughout working in officiating capacity and was a "local candidate" like several other such employees appointed by direct recruitment by Government instead of regular recruitment by the Public Service Commission of the State as required by the Rules of Recruitment.
4. Rule 8 (27A) of the Mysore, Civil Service Rules 1958 defines a "local candidate" as meaning a temporary Government servant not appointed regularly in accordance with the Rules of Recruitment to that service. Rule 1 (A) of the Mysore Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957 provides that those rules do not apply to a person appointed as a local candidate so long as he is treated as such. It further provides that where his appointment is treated as regularised from any date, his seniority in the service shall be determined in accordance with these rules as if he had been appointed regularly in accordance with the Rules of Recruitment to the post held by him on that day. Since the appointment of local candidates as in the case of the respondent was not made by or through the Public Service Commission as required by the Rules, the State Government with a view to regularise such appointments passed the said order, dated September 22, 1961.
5. The material portion of the said order runs as follows :-
"2. * * * *
(i) All appointments to Class III Direct Recruitment Posts made by the local appointing authorities, both in the old Mysore area (including Bellary District) and in the other integrating areas upto 31st December 1959 (inclusive) may be regularised subject to the condition that the candidates were within the prescribed age limits and had the requisite qualifications at the time of their initial appointments;
(ii) The services of local candidates shall be regularised with effect from the date of their appointment, from which their service is continuous provided they were in service on 1st January 1960 and continue to be in service at the time their services are regularised.
(iii) The local service will count for purposes of leave, pension and increments . . .but not for purposes of seniority; only the service from the date of regularisation of their appointments in the particular department will count for seniority;
(iv) Breaks in service will not be condoned even if such breaks are only for short periods."
6. In the Writ Petition filed by the respondent against the impugned order, dated July 4, 1963 terminating his service the respondent raised two points: -(i) that though he was a local candidate appointed from time to time to the aforesaid posts he was entitled to have his service regularised under the said order, and (ii) that as he was entitled to be so regularised he was also entitled to the protection of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution. Consequently, his serv
