IMPORTANT POINT
Merely because an employee had continued under cover of an order of Court, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service.

Headnote:(a) Interpretation of judgment – Leave granted only to those petitioners who had not been paid their salary for the period they worked as Accountant – Appellants were not held entitled to institute separate application – Not valid. (Para 12)
        (b) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 11 – Well settled that the principle of res judicata applies also to the writ proceedings – SLP decision having attained finality, appellants were hit by res judicata. (Para 13)
        (2004) 1 SCC 106; AIR 1961 SC 564 – Relied upon.
        (c) Karnataka Civil Services (Special Recruitment of Local Candidates) Rules, 1986 – Rule 3(2) – Having been appointed by a person who had no authority, the offers of appointment made in appellants’ favour must be held to be nullities. (Para 15)
        (d) Service Law – Regularisation – Well-settled that merely because an employee had continued under cover of an order of Court, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. (Para 16)
        (2006)4 SCC 1; (2008)10 SCC 1 – Relied upon.
       Facts of the case :
        1. Appellants were appointed as Patwaris/Village Accountants and had been working for a long time in the Revenue Department. Concededly, they were appointed by the Tahsildar/Assistant Commissioner. They prayed for regularization of their services.
        2. As the said prayer was not acceded to, they filed Writ Applications before the High Court. On constitution of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, those writ petitions were transferred to the Tribunal and the said applications were dismissed by the Tribunal. Special Leave Petitions filed thereagainst were also dismissed.
        3. Relying on or on the basis of the observations made in SLP (C) Nos. 226-29 of 1988 and 5932-41 of 1987, the appellants requested the State to regularize their services under the 1986 Rules. The State rejected their prayer stating that the 1986 Rules were not applicable to their cases as they had been appointed by the Tahsildar/Assistant Commissioners whereas in terms of the 1986 Rules, the appointing authority was the Deputy Commissioner.
        4. Relying on or on the basis of the observations made by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No. 5377 of 1986, appellants again approached the Tribunal by filing Application No. 287 of 1997 and connected cases praying for regularization under the 1986 Rules. The Tribunal by its order dated 26.3.1998 allowed the said applications.
        5. Writ Petitions preferred against the said order by the respondents have been allowed by the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment. Review petitions preferred by the appellants have been rejected by the High Court.
       Finding of the Court :
        Appeals are without merit.
       Result : Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellants are before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 04.09.2002 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in WP Nos. 38797-38800/1998, 38803/1998, 38808/1998, 38810/1998, 38812-38816/1998, 38828-38830/1998 & 38832/1998 and judgment and order dated 11.10.2002 passed by the said Court in RP Nos. 769-775/2002 and 776-782/2002 respectively whereby and whereunder the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein for quashing the order dated 26.03.1998 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal were allowed and review petitions filed by the appellants herein for review of the order dated 4.9.2002 passed by the said Court were rejected.

3. Appellants were appointed as Patwaris/Village Accountants. They allegedly had been working for a long time in the Revenue Department. Concededly, they were appointed by the Tahsildar/Assistant Commissioner. They prayed for regularization of their services. As the said prayer was not acceeded to, they filed Writ Applications before the High Court being W.P. Nos. 25695-696 of 1981 and other connected matters seeking for direction upon the State of Karnataka to regularize them in services in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka State Civil Services (Direct Recruitment to Class-III Posts) (Special) Rules, 1973 (for short, “the 1973 Rules”).

4. Indisputably, on constitution of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, those writ petitions were transferred to the Tribunal and renumbered as Application Nos. 2318-19/1986 and connected cases. On or about 20.02.1987, the said applications were dismissed by the Tribunal. Special Leave Petitions filed thereagainst in this Court were also dismissed.

5. Relying on or on the basis of the observations made by this Court in SLP (C) Nos. 226-29 of 1988 and 5932-41 of 1987 that it would be open for the appellants to represent before State of Karnataka or to avail any other remedy available to them under law, inter alia, contending that their services should be regularized in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services (Special Recruitment of Local Candidates) Rules, 1986 (for short, “the 1986 Rules”), which had come into force with effect from 4.7.1986, the appellants requested the State to regularize their services under the 1986 Rules. The State rejected their prayer stating that the 1986 Rules were not applicable to their cases as they had been appointed by the Tahsildar/Assistant Commissioners whereas in terms of the 1986 Rules, the appointing authority was the Deputy Commissioner.

6. Indisputably, relying on or on the basis of the observations made by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No. 5377 of 1986 that Patwaris do come within the purview of the definition of ‘local candidates’ and therefore were entitled to be considered for regularization in terms of the 1986 rules, appellants again approached the Tribunal by filing Application No. 287 of 1997 and connected cases praying for regularization under the 1986 Rules. The Tribunal by its order dated 26.3.1998 allowed the said applications, directing:

“(ii) Authorities are directed to regularize the services of the applicants who have passed the SSLC Examinations before 5th July, 1983, under the Karnataka State Civil Services (Special Recruitment of Local Candidates) Rules, 1986 which came into force on 4.7.1986 (wherein sub-rule 2 of rule 3 envisages the definition of Local Candidate) within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order; and it is also made clear that the services of the applicants who are in service not to be disturbed till the date of their regularization;

(iii) Benefit of this order is not applicable to those who have passed the prescribed SSLC examination on or after 5th July, 1983, since they do not fulfill the eligibility criteria under the Rules in question, for purpose of appointment as Village Accountant since acquisition of qu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 272

IMPORTANT POINT Merely because an employee had continued under cover of an order of Court, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service.

Cases Referred (4)

IMPORTANT POINT
Merely because an employee had continued under cover of an order of Court, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service.