IMPORTANT POINT
An illegal appointment cannot be regularized.

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—

1. Leave granted.

2. The right of the appellants herein, if any, to be regularized in Class ‘C’ Services of the Railways is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellants against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Ranchi passed in OA No.604 of 1997 and OA No.398 of 1998, was dismissed.

3. Appellants were directly appointed in Group ‘C’ posts except serial No.5 in the Electrical Department of the Railway Electrification Project. As despite working for a long time, their services were not regularized, they filed two original applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna, Circuit Bench, Ranchi, praying, inter alia, for a direction upon the respondents to finalise their regular absorption in the services in grade ‘C’ posts against the sanctioned strength which were marked as OA Nos.604 of 1997 and OA No.398 of 1998. By reason of a judgment and order dated 5.7.2001, the said original applications were allowed, in part, directing :

“In the result, the applicants’ claim to be regularized in Group ‘C’ post as asserted in the OAs in hand is not acceptable, instead they were required to be regularized in feeder cadre in Group-‘D’ post by providing pay protection of ‘C’ post.”

4. Appellants aggrieved thereby filed a writ petition in the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. The said writ petition has been dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment, stating :

“No doubt, the petitioners were casually employed in Grade-C initially and thereafter they acquired temporary status, but the fact remains, and the finding of the fact by the Tribunal is, that the selections of the petitioners were not regular selections. It is, no doubt, true that they had taken a trade test when they were recruited, though casually in Grade-C. But that would not make their selection regular selection. In our view, the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court that in such promotional posts, there should not be regularization and the regularization could only be in the lower grade, is clearly applicable to the case on hand. We are satisfied that the Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion that the petitioners in the case on hand could be regularized only in Group-D posts, though protecting their pay and not in Grade-C posts. On going through the order of the Tribunal, we are not satisfied that it suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record justifying our interference. Nor can we accept the argument that the decision is unjust since the pay of the petitioners stood protected, notwithstanding the fact that they are sought to be regularized in a lower post. In this situation, we see no reason to interfere.”

5. Mr. Sanyal, learned senior counsel in appearing support of the appeal, would contend that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case the services of the appellants should have been directed to be regularized in Group ‘C’ posts as they were appointed directly thereto. It was urged that the Tribunal and consequently, the High Court committed a serious error in opining that the posts in Group ‘C’ in the Central Government were required to be filled up only through promotion and not through direct recruitment. The learned counsel would also contend that from a letter dated 25.8.1997, which was issued by way of a representation made by the appellants to the General Manager, Central Organisation, Railway Electrification, Allahabad, it would appear that they had, except one, were directly appointed in the posts of T.C.M. Electrician Fitter, W/Driver Grade ‘C’ posts.

Learned counsel would contend that it is also not a case where the appellants do not possess the requisite qualification. They had also passed the trade test. It was furthermore urged that the Patna High Court in a similar situation having granted relief, the Jhark