IMPORTANT POINT
Illegal appointments cannot be regularized.

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—

1.Leave granted.

2.These appeals involving similar questions of law and 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 been appointed on an ad-hoc basis could be treated to have been regularized in their services.

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. 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 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 directed the appellant to consider the claim of the respondent in terms of the judgment in Premakala Shetty vs. Common Cadre Committee.

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No.24985-25042/2006

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 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. Challenging the order of the Tribunal appellant State approached the High Court which dismissed the writ petition by reason of an order dated 21.7.04 and directed the appellant to consider the claim of the respondents following the judgment in Premakala Shetty vs. Common Cadre Committee.

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.12223/2006

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 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 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 Department, Bagalore and Ors. vs. T.B. Manjunath and Ors. and Premakala Shetty vs. Common Cadre Committee.

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos.15115-15119/2004

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 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 Cour