2010 Supreme(SC) 75

2010 (1) Supreme 217
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.M. Panchal and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma,JJ.
Union of India & Anr. — Appellants
versus
Kartick Chandra Mondal & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2090 of 2007
Decided on : 15-01-2010

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. The language employed in a statute is determinative factor of the legislative intent. If the language of the enactment is clear and unambiguous, it would not be proper for the courts to add any words thereto and evolve some legislative intent, not found in the statute.
2. An order would be deemed to be a Government order as and when it is issued and publicized. Internal communications while processing a matter cannot be said to be orders issued by the competent authority unless they are issued in accordance with law.

Headnote:Service Law – Appeal against order passed by High Court whereby it upheld the direction given by the Central Administrative Tribunal to absorb the respondents in any suitable post commensurate with their qualifications – Case of appellants that such direction to absorb respondents could not have been issued by the CAT and High Court, particularly, in view of fact that respondents were engaged as Peons on casual basis without having been recruited through the proper procedure and having not been sponsored by Employment Exchange and having worked with appellant no. 2 only for two years – Held internal communications which were relied upon by respondents and which were also referred to by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court. were communications exchanged between the officers at the level of board hierarchy only – An order would be deemed to be a Government order as and when it is issued and publicized – Internal communications while processing a matter cannot be said to be orders issued by the competent authority unless they are issued in accordance with law – Note of the Legal Adviser culminated in the aforesaid note of the Deputy Director which clearly indicates that no official order was passed by the competent authority and therefore issuing directions to the appellants to absorb the respondents on the basis of the same was unjustified and uncalled for – Misplaced sympathy was shown in the case of respondents who had worked with the appellants only for two years, i.e., from 1981 to 1983 – Even assuming that similarly placed persons were ordered to be absorbed, the same if done erroneously cannot become the foundation for perpetuating further illegality – If an appointment is made illegally or irregularly, the same cannot be the basis of further appointment – An erroneous decision cannot be permitted to perpetuate further error to the detriment of general welfare of the public or a considerable section – If at this distant date an order is passed for reappointment or absorption of the respondents, the same would be in violation of the settled law of the land – Apart from that respondents had not been working with respondents at any point of time after 1983 – There was also a continuing ban on recruitment due to which there was no recruitment or appointment in the Group ‘D’ posts of the Ordnance Factory Board – Hence Impugned orders passed by Tribunal as also by High Court set aside – Appeal allowed. (Paras 11 to 13, 16 to 18)

        Service Law – Appeal against order passed by High Court whereby it upheld the direction given by the Central Administrative Tribunal to absorb the respondents in any suitable post commensurate with their qualifications – So far as the Office Memorandum dated 07.05.1985 was concerned, the same was issued by way of relaxation of the condition of recruitment of casual workers – But the fact remained that the respondents worked with appellants only for two years, i.e., from 1981 to 1983 and admittedly on the date when the said office memorandum was issued they were not working with appellant no. 2 – Nothing in the contents or in language of the said office memorandum to indicate that there was an intention to give a retrospective effect to the contents of the said notification – Instead, language used in the said notification clearly showed that the same was intended to be prospective in nature and not retrospective – Said office memorandum stated that same would apply only to those persons who might have been continuing as casual workers for a number of years and who were not eligible for regular appointment and whose services might be terminated at any time – Therefore, it envisaged and could be made applicable to only those persons who were in service on the date when said office memorandum was issued – Unless and until there is a clear intention expressed in the notification that it would also apply retrospectively, same cannot be given a retrospective effect and would always operate prospectively – Appeal allowed. (Para 11)

        Interpretation of statutes – It is a well – settled principle in law that the court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous – The language employed in a statute is determinative factor of the legislative intent – If the language of the enactment is clear and unambiguous, it would not be proper for the courts to add any words thereto and evolve some legislative intent, not found in the statute. (Para 11) [(2009) 3 SCC 553,relied upon

       Facts of the Case :

        Present Appeal has been filed against order passed by High Court whereby it upheld the direction given by the Central Administrative Tribunal to absorb the respondents in any suitable post commensurate with their qualifications. Case of appellants that such direction to absorb respondents could not have been issued by the CAT and High Court, particularly, in view of fact that respondents were engaged as Peons on casual basis without having been recruited through the proper procedure and having not been sponsored by Employment Exchange and having worked with appellant no. 2 only for two years.

       Findings of the Court :

        Held there was misplaced sympathy shown in the case of respondents who had worked with the appellants only for two years, i.e., from 1981 to 1983. Even assuming that similarly placed persons were ordered to be absorbed, the same if done erroneously cannot become the foundation for perpetuating further illegality. If an appointment is made illegally or irregularly, the same cannot be the basis of further appointment-An erroneous decision cannot be permitted to perpetuate further error to the detriment of general welfare of the public or a considerable section. If at this distant date an order is passed for reappointment or absorption of the respondents, the same would be in violation of the settled law of the land .Apart from that respondents had not been working with respondents at any point of time after 1983.There was also a continuing ban on recruitment due to which there was no recruitment or appointment in the Group ‘D’ posts of the Ordnance Factory Board. Hence Impugned orders passed by Tribunal as also by High Court were set aside .Appeal was allowed.

       Result : Appeal allowed.