2011 (6) Supreme 89
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.K. Jain and H.L. Dattu, JJ.
Union of India & Anr. — Appellants
versus
Arulmozhi Iniarasu & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos.4990-4991 of 2011
(Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 25200-25201 of 2010)
Decided on : 6-7-2011
(b) Binding precedent – No reliance can be placed on a decision unless the fact situations of the two cases fit – Blind reliance on a decision is not proper. (Para 12)
(2004) 8 SCC 579; (2008) 1 SCC 494; (2010) 2 SCC 273 – Relied upon
(c) Service Law – Appointment – Engagement as casual labourers even for considerable long duration does not confer any legal right on a person – No mandamus can be issued for relaxation of age limit. (Para 15)
(2006) 4 SCC 1 – Relied upon
(2008) 1 SCC 798 – Distinguished
(d) Legitimate expectation – Scope – It has to be shown that the person has relied on the representation, practice or conduct of the authorities arousing expectation and the denial of that expectation has worked to his detriment. (Para 18)
1985 AC 374 : (1984) 3 All ER 935 (HL); (2009) 1 SCC 180; (2006) 4 SCC 1 – Relied upon
(e) Constitution of India – Article 226 r/w Article 14 – Applicability – Only when there exists a legal right in the writ petitioner and corresponding legal obligation in the State – Only because an illegality has been committed, the same cannot be directed to be perpetuated – There cannot be equality in illegality. (Para 23)
(2005) 3 SCC 16; (2006) 9 SCC 82; (2006) 13 SCC 252; (2007) 15 SCC 129 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The High Court direction to give age relaxation to SC/ST candidates for recruitment to the post of Sepoy only to ex-employees is under challenge in this case.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgments cannot be sustained.
JUDGMENT
D.K. Jain, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. These two appeals, by special leave, are directed against the judgment and final order dated 5th January, 2010 delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, whereby the High Court, in slight modification of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench (for short “the Tribunal”), has directed that the respondents shall be given a relaxation of five years and three years respectively to SC/ST and OBC candidates in age limit for being considered for selection to the post of Sepoy in the Central Excise department, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. However, the High Court has directed that the said relaxation would be applicable to those candidates who were actually erstwhile employees of the said department.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts essential for adjudication of the present appeals may be stated as follows:
The respondents were engaged as part-time contingent casual labourers-purely on temporary basis in the Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Zone, in the year 1999. As per offer of appointment on record, they were required to work on the basis of the need of the office, for which they were to be paid @ ‘10/- per working hour with no guarantee as regards minimum number of hours in a month. In para 7 of the said letter, it was stated that the appointment letter would not confer any right to claim any permanent post in the department as also any automatic right to be considered for selection to any permanent post in the department. Most of them were in continuous employment for a period ranging from 8 to 14 years. It is common ground that none of the respondents fall within the purview of 1993 scheme, notified on 10th September, 1993, for conferring temporary status and regularisation of casual workers, who were in employment on 1st September, 1993, all of them having been engaged after the said date.
4. On 2nd May, 2005, in compliance with the directions issued by the Ministry of Finance, the appellants dispensed with the services of all such casual labourers and handed over the work done by them to contractors. Aggrieved by the said action the respondents herein, approached the Tribunal by preferring an original application, (O.A.No.764 of 2005) seeking regularisation of their services. The said O.A. was dismissed by the Tribunal. Against the order of dismissal, the respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court. While disposing of the writ petition, the High Court directed the appellants herein to consider the matter afresh in light of the circulars issued by the Department of Personnel in O.M.No.49019/1/2006-Estt(C) dated 11th December, 2006 as also the circulars issued by the Ministry of Finance dated 7th September, 2007 and 13th September, 2007. These circulars were issued pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi (3) & Ors.1 (2006) 4 SCC 1, inter-alia directing the Union of India, State Governments and their instrumentalities to take steps to regularise, as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed employees, who are duly qualified in terms of the statutory recruitment rules for the post and who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned post but not under cover of orders of Courts or Tribunals.
5. Upon a fresh consideration in terms of the said direction, the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise found that the respondents were not eligible for regularization of their services as they did not satisfy the criteria laid down in the case of Umadevi(3) (supra) and Office Memorandum dated 11th December, 2006, issued by Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions.
6. On 14th January, 2008, the office of the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Zone, issued a notice inviting applications for recruitment to 40 (37 GC & 3 OBC) posts of Sepoy (General Centra
State of Orissa, v. Prasana Kumar Sahoo
Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. N.R. Vairamani
Sushanta Tagore v. Union of India
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)
U. P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. v. Sant Raj Singh
Nagendra Chandra v. State of Jharkhand
Sarva Shramik Sanghatana (KV), Mumbai v. State of Maharashtra
Sethi Auto Service Station v. Delhi Development Authority
Bhuwalka Steel Industries Limited v. Bombay Iron & Steel Labour Board
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.