1. Employment regularization — Non-teaching staff — Private college converted to constituent college — Claim for salary and regularization based on staffing pattern. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 175
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.
Upendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2356 of 2018
Decided On : 23-02-2018
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Persons appointed illegally cannot be regularized.
Persons appointed illegally cannot be regularized.
Subject
Employment Law - Regularization of Services
Act Referred
Headnote
Service law – Regularisation – Appointment made without advertisement and any recommendation of selection panel – Appointment not made by competent authority – Posts not sanctioned – Held, appointment not in accordance with law – Appellants not entitled to any relief. (Para 7, 9)
(2006) 4 SCC 1 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Writ petitions were filed by 11 persons including the appellant seeking regularization.
These petitions have been dismissed by the single Judge of the High court which has been affirmed by the Division Bench.
Finding of the Court:
Appellants are not entitled to any relief.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant claims appointment via due process against sanctioned posts; Respondent contends appointments were illegal, lacked sanctioned posts, and bypassed prescribed recruitment procedures. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. Initial appointments were illegal due to lack of advertisement, selection committee recommendations, and competent authority approval; no sanctioned posts existed for the claimants. (Para 7 )
4. Daily wagers appointed contrary to law or without sanctioned posts cannot be regularized, including under one-time measures if employment continued via court orders. (Para 8 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 9 )
6. Can daily wagers appointed contrary to law be regularized?
No, the regularization of daily wagers appointed contrary to law does not arise. Appointments must be made in accordance with the law to be eligible for regularization. (Para 7 , 8 )
7. What are the conditions for the one-time regularization measure for ad hoc or daily wage employees?
Employees working on ad hoc or daily wage basis for over ten years may be regularized as a one-time measure, provided they were appointed to duly sanctioned posts and did not continue service solely under court or tribunal orders. (Para 8 )
8. Does litigious continuation of employment count towards the ten-year period for regularization?
No, periods where employees continued to work under the cover of orders from courts or tribunals are excluded when counting the ten-year period required for one-time regularization. (Para 8 )
9. What constitutes an illegal appointment that cannot be regularized under any circumstances?
An appointment is void ab initio and cannot be regularized if it is made contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution, without open competitive selection, or as an individual favor. (Para 8 )
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Sikri, J.
1. The appellant herein has challenged the judgment dated July 25, 2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) filed by the appellant. In fact, by the said common judgment, two LPAs are decided. One LPA was filed by three persons and the other was filed by eight persons. All these eleven persons, who were engaged by one K.D.S. College (respondent No.8 in these proceedings) situate within the jurisdiction of P.S. Gogari, District Khagaria, Bihar, wanted regularisation of their services and payment of salary based on such regularisation. Their writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and the intra-court appeal has met the same fate. However, it appears that out of eleven persons, who were the appellants in the aforesaid two LPAs, only the appellant herein has approached this Court feeling dissatisfied with the outcome therein.
2. The main case set up by the appellant is that, no doubt, respondent No.8 was a private college when the appellant was engaged, however, it was ultimately taken over by the State Government and got affiliated to the Bihar University. It is stated that having regard to the long service rendered by the appellant, coupled with the decision of the University authorities itself to regularise such persons, he was also entitled thereto. However, the same is denied and he has not been paid his regular salary for last over a decade. The claim is founded on the following averments:
3. The Governing Body of respondent No.8 constituted a Selection Committee for appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff and this Committee, after following due process of recruitment through an advertisement and thereafter selection on interview, appointed the appellant in Grade III in non-teaching category with effect from January 24, 1978. In the year 1980, a decision was taken by the Government of Bihar to some Universities, including the Bihar University, that the colleges affiliated with these Universities be converted as ‘Constituent Colleges’ of the University on the basis of which respondent No.8 also became a Constituent College of the Bihar University. This decision was implemented by respondent No.8 as well and with effect from June 16, 1981, respondent No.8 attained the status of Constituent College. Thereupon, respondent No.8 absorbed all the employees, including the appellant, and the appellant continued in service of respondent No.8 thereafter. However, as the University authorities did not make payment of salaries to the appellant and some other employees of Grade III and Grade IV, although they were continued in service, representations were made in this behalf by the College Employees’ Federation. Though, initially assurances were given, they were not fulfilled, because of which the Employees’ Federation started the agitation and continued the same. Ultimately, State of Bihar and Bihar Higher Education Department entered into an agreement dated April 26, 1989 with the Bihar State University and the College Employees’ Federation agreeing to absorb the employees, including the appellant, on the basis of Staffing Pattern. Based on that decision, respondent No.8 scrutinised the records of its employees and recommended the names of non-teaching staff, including that of the appellant, through its letter dated December 22, 1989 to the Government recommending the names for absorption. All such names were considered by a three man Staffing Committee appointed by the University, which inspected the records, however, no final decision was taken. In these circumstances, when the matter was getting delayed, the appellant and others filed writ petition in the High Court in the year 1997, which was disposed of on May 05, 1999 directing the State Government to take appropriate decision as early as possible. Thereafter, the matter was considered and ultimately the Bihar University issued orders dated August 30, 1999/September 15, 1999 rejecti
