2010 Supreme(SC) 236

2010 (3) Supreme 156
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.V. Raveendran and K.S. Radhakrishnan, JJ.
Satya Prakash & Ors. — Appellants
versus
State of Bihar & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2440 of 2010
[Arising out of SLP) No.5938 of 2009]
Decided on : 16-03-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
Merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules.

Headnote:Service Law- Appellants who had worked for more than 10 years on daily rated basis in the Bihar Intermediate Education Council approached High Court for regularization of their services – Single Judge of High Court directed the Council to consider their request for regularization treating them as a separate class after relaxing their age- Since no positive direction was given to the Council for regularization of their services, an appeal was preferred before Division Bench of High Court- Division Bench held that merely because they had worked as daily waged employees with the Council would not confer any right for regularization as no public appointment was permissible de hors the recruitment rules- Appeal-Held appellants were not entitled to get benefit of regularization of their services since they were never appointed in any sanctioned posts- Appellants were only engaged on daily wages in the Bihar Intermediate Education Council- In Secretary, State of Karnataka And Others v. Umadevi (3) And Others Apex Court held that the Courts are not expected to issue any direction for absorption/regularization or permanent continuance of temporary,contractual, casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees- Apex Court held that such directions issued could not be said to be in consistent with the constitutional scheme of public employment- Merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules-Hence in view of law laid down by Apex Court, the directions sought for by the appellants could not be granted-Appeal dismissed. (Para 6, 12 to 15)

       Facts of the Case :

       Appellants who had worked for more than 10 years on daily rated basis in the Bihar Intermediate Education Council approached High Court for regularization of their services herein in the instant case. Single Judge of High Court directed the Council to consider their request for regularization treating them as a separate class after relaxing their age. Since no positive direction was given to the Council for regularization of their services, an appeal was preferred before Division Bench of High Court. Division Bench held that merely because they had worked as daily waged employees with the Council would not confer any right for regularization as no public appointment was permissible de hors the recruitment rules.

       2.Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

       The Court held that appellants were not entitled to get benefit of regularization of their services since they were never appointed in any sanctioned posts. Appellants were only engaged on daily wages in the Bihar Intermediate Education Council. In Secretary, State of Karnataka And Others v. Umadevi (3) And Others Apex Court held that the Courts are not expected to issue any direction for absorption/regularization or permanent continuance of temporary,contractual, casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees. Apex Court held that such directions issued could not be said to be in consistent with the constitutional scheme of public employment. Merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules.Hence in view of law laid down by Apex Court, the directions sought for by the appellants could not be granted. Appeal was dismissed