SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(SC) 331

2011 (2) Supreme 717
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.
State of U.P. and others — Appellants
versus
Rekha Rani — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1017 of 2007
Decided on : 30-3-2011

IMPORTANT POINT
High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 cannot regularize an employee.

Headnote:(a) Administration of Justice – Binding precedent – SLP dismissed without any discussion on merits – Such decision does not amount to precedent. (Para 10)

        (b) Service Law – Regularisation – High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 cannot regularize an employee – Merely because some others had been regularized does not give any right to the person concerned – An illegality cannot be perpetuated. (Para 12)

        (2011) 2 SCC 429; (2006) 4 SCC 1 – Relied upon

        AIR 1987 SC 478; AIR 1991 SC 1286 – Distinguished impliedly

        (c) Service Law – Service conditions – A temporary employee has no right to the post. (Para 13)

        (1991) 1 SCC 691 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

        1. The respondent has a degree of B.A.M.S.. She alleged that she had all the requisite qualifications to be appointed as Medical Officer in the U.P. State Services but was appointed under the Anshkalik (temporary) Scheme of the State Government.

        2. The respondent was appointed from 1.8.1987 to 31.7.1988, then from 3.8.1988 to 2.8.1989, then from 4.8.1989 to 3.8.1990 and from 7.8.1990 for a period one year.

        3. It is alleged that her services were terminated despite satisfactory service and discriminating her against similarly situated persons.

       Finding of the Court:

        Respondent has no right to the post.

       Result : Appeal allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

Markandey Katju, J. —

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28.7.2003 in CMWP No. 1213 of 1999 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The respondent has a degree of B.A.M.S.(Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery). She alleged in her writ petition filed in the High Court that she had all the requisite qualifications to be appointed as Medical Officer in the U.P. State Services. She was appointed vide order dated 1.8.1997 under the Anshkalik (temporary) Scheme of the State Government and was posted at a Government Female Hospital in Bulandshahar district.

4. It is alleged in her writ petition that to avoid the claim of regular service of the writ petitioner the State Government acted against the spirit of law laid down by this Court in Rattanlal and others vs. State of Haryana and others1 AIR 1987 SC 478 and in Rabinarayan Mohapatra vs. State of Orissa and others2 AIR 1991 SC 1286 and other decisions given from time to time by this Court, declaring illegal the policy of making ad hoc appointment having time bound period and thereafter terminating the services of the appointee and after a short interval giving re-appointment. It was alleged that artificial break of service was given by the State Government which is against the spirit of the aforesaid decisions of this Court. The appellant was appointed from 1.8.1987 to 31.7.1988, then from 3.8.1988 to 2.8.1989, then from 4.8.1989 to 3.8.1990 and from 7.8.1990 for a period one year. It is also alleged that the appellant’s work was always found to be satisfactory, and certificates to this effect were given by the Chief Medical Officer, Bulandshahar which were marked as Annexure-4 to the writ petition filed in the High Court. It is alleged that others similarly situated were also given artificial breaks in service. It is alleged that Anshkalik doctors filed a writ petition being Civil Writ Petition No. 4886 of 1990 before the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) which was allowed on 11.2.1992 and the said judgment became final. The High Court held that there was violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and that the claim of the writ petitioner(s) for regularization shall be considered within six months from the date of production of copy of the said judgment before the respondent (the State Government). The writ petitioner (respondent in the present appeal) has alleged that she is entitled to the benefit of the said decision, although she had not filed any individual writ petition.

5. The respondent herein did not work after 16.4.1991 in the State service as her services came to an end on that date. She made several representations to the government authorities but to no avail. It is alleged that the State government arbitrarily terminated the service of the respondent on 16.4.1991. It is alleged that she was entitled to regularization in service and parity in wages as regular employees.

6. It is alleged that an SLP(C) No. 25503 of 1995 was filed before this Court against the Allahabad High Court judgment and order dated 11.2.1991 passed in writ petition No. 4886 of 1990, but the same was dismissed on 19.2.1996. It is also alleged that after the dismissal of the said SLP the writ petitioner(s) should have been regularized in service, but that was not done.

7. It is alleged that others similarly situated have been regularized e.g. Dr. Sudha Trivedi in pursuance of the order dated 21.3.1996 in writ petition No. 6528 of 1992. Similarly, Dr. Lilawati Tripathi was also regularized in service. Hence, it is alleged that the writ petitioner (respondent herein) has been discriminated against.

8. A counter affidavit was filed before the High Court in which it was stated that the respondent herein had been appointed as a temporary employee from time to time, and the last appointment was given on 7.8.1990 for one year. She was not in service w.e.f 16.4.1







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top