IMPORTANT POINT
A person appointed periodically does not acquire a right to become a permanent employee.

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellant had been appointed as a Peon on a short term vacancy from time to time for a fixed period. Such appointments were said to have been made on diverse dates, namely - on 9.5.1989, 20.9.2989, 4.12.1989, 2.2.1991, 2.3.1991, 29.6.1991, 27.8.1991, 11.12.1991, 1.1.1992, 31.3.1992, 26.8.1992, 5.3.1993, 2.8.1993, 28.9.1993, 4.12.1993, 4.1.1994, 23.5.1994, 6.9.1995, 6.11.1995 and 15.2.1996.

Names were called for from Employment Exchange in the year 1995. Appellant applied for the post of Peon which fell vacant in the District of Chamoli. A Selection Committee was constituted for selection of the candidates. Appellant is said to have appeared before the Selection Committee. The name of the appellant was placed at serial No.3 in the general category. However, on or about 29.5.1995, the name of the appellant was deleted and in his place the name of one Mohan Lal was inserted. Appellant’s services were terminated on 5.4.1996.

3. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, he filed a writ petition on or about 3.12.2002 before the High Court of Uttaranchal which by reason of the impugned judgment has been dismissed.

4. Mr. R. Krishnamorthi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would urge that appellant having been working since 1989 continuously, his services could not have been terminated particularly in view of the fact that he was selected for regular appointment by a selection committee.

5. It has been brought on record that the name of the appellant was wrongly placed at serial No.3 in the wait-list as Mohal Lal had secured higher marks than the appellant. As there were only three vacancies, appellant’s name had to be deleted.

6. Appellant does not attribute any mala fide to the respondent. It is not his case that Mohan Lal, in fact, had not secured higher marks than him. If a mistake was committed, the respondents were entitled to rectify the same.

All persons similarly situated under our constitutional scheme are required to be treated equally. Some mistakes were found in the selection list. If those mistakes have been rectified and the irregularities have been removed by preparing the selection list strictly in accordance with rules, no exception thereto can be taken.

7. Mohan Lal was wrongly placed in the category of reserved candidates as he had competed with the general category candidates. Appellant, indisputably, had been appointed on periodical basis. He might have continued to work as a Peon for a long time but by reason thereof, he did not acquire any indefeasible right to become a permanent employee of the department.

Regularization of services, as is well-known, is impermissible in law. Though belatedly respondents had taken steps to fill up the existing vacancies in terms of the recruitment rules and upon following the constitutional scheme of equality as adumbrated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

8. Contention of the appellant that as he has been working for a long time, should have been given preference over said Shri Mohan Lal, in our considered opinion, cannot be accepted.

In Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) & Ors.1 [(2006) 4 SCC 1], a Constitution Bench of this Court has laid down the law in the following terms :

“43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it i