SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.
The Gauhati High Court Through The Registrar General – Appellant
Versus
Goto Ete & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4298 of 2018 (Arising Out Of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 23780 of 2016)
Decided On : 23-04-2018
(2012) 6 SCC 502; (2011) 10 SCC 1; (2011) 11 SCC 458; (1969) 3 SCC 56; (1975) 1 SCC 843 – Relied upon
(2002) 5 SCC 1; (2008) 6 SCC 731 – Referred
Facts of the case:
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were appointed as Additional Deputy Commissioners with the powers of Additional Sessions Judge, on contract basis, with the stipulation that their period of contract is up to March 31, 2005 which was extended for a further period of five years, i.e. up to March 31, 2010.
These respondents put their claims for regularisation to the said posts and to be allowed to work as Additional Sessions Judges. Request for appointment on regular basis was rejected by the High Court and services of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were dispensed with on January 07, 2013.
This termination was challenged by the writ petitioners by filing Writ Petition (Civil) which has been allowed.
Finding of the Court:
Writ petitioners are not entitled to regularisation.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Sikri, J.
Leave granted.
2. Pursuant to the advertisement dated July 13, 2001 issued by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘writ petitioners’) were appointed as Additional Deputy Commissioners with the powers of Additional Sessions Judge, on contract basis, with the stipulation that their period of contract is up to March 31, 2005. They were to man the Fast Track Courts (for short, ‘FTCs’). This contract period was extended for a further period of five years, i.e. up to March 31, 2010. These respondents put their claims for regularisation to the said posts and to be allowed to work as Additional Sessions Judges, invoking the provisions of Rule 7 of the Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2006. There has been a protracted litigation in this behalf, as would be noticed hereinafter at the relevant stage. At this juncture, while narrating the background in which the matter has landed in this Court, we may only mention that request for appointment on regular basis was rejected by the High Court (the appellant herein) and services of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were dispensed with on January 07, 2013. This termination was challenged by the writ petitioners by filing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 776 of 2013. The proceedings of this writ petition have culminated in the judgment dated January 19, 2016 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Vide this judgment the writ petition has been allowed, thereby quashing the order of dispensing the ad hoc services of the writ petitioners with further direction that the State/respondent No.4 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Government’) should start consultation process for absorption of the writ petitioners in Grade-I of the Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service with effect from January 07, 2013 and directed the appellant, i.e. the Gauhati High Court (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’) to consider the cases of the writ petitioners for absorption in the light of the observations made in the said judgment. The High Court feels aggrieved by these directions and that is the reason for challenging the judgment dated January 19, 2016. Notice in this Special Leave Petition was issued on August 08, 2016 and simultaneously this Court had granted the stay of the impugned judgment. The result is that the writ petitioners have not been taken back into service.
With this background, we now state the factual matrix in some detail.
3. An advertisement was issued on July 13, 2001 by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh inviting applications for filling up of three posts of Additional Deputy Commissioners with the powers of Additional Sessions Judge, on contract basis, for the period up to March 31, 2005. Pursuant thereto, on June 04, 2002, the writ petitioners were selected for the aforesaid posts by the High Court. The State Government issued appointment orders in their favour for the aforesaid post, on contract basis, up to March 31, 2005. This term was subsequently extended for another five years, i.e. up to March 31, 2010. The purpose was to post the incumbents in Fast Track Courts.
4. It is relevant to point out that at that time there was no segregation of executive branch from the judicial wing in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. This was, however, accomplished by promulgating the Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2006 Rules’), which were notified on December 06, 2006. Rule 7 of the 2006 Rules relate to the method of recruitment and the relevant portion thereof is couched in the following manner:
“7. Method of recruitment, qualification, reservation and age limit.
In respect of each category of posts specified in Column (2) of the Table below, the method of recruitment and minimum qualification, age limit etc. are specified in the corresponding entries in column (3) and (4) thereof. Provided that the 3 (three) adhoc Additional Sessions Judges who were selected and appointed by t
Brij Mohan Lal (1) v. Union of India
Madhumita Das v. State of Orissa
Brij Mohan Lal (2) v. Union of India
Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior
Mahesh Chandra Verma v. State of Jharkhand
Rajendra Singh Verma (Dead) through Lrs. v. Lieutenant Governor (NCT of Delhi)
Ajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand
Appointees for a limited purpose and on contract basis are not entitled to regularization.
Irregular appointments made by competent authorities can be regularized if employees have served for over ten years, emphasizing the need for pragmatic interpretation of rules.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the impugned order rejecting the claim of regularization was not sustainable in the eyes of the law, and the respondents were directed to cons....
Merely because the notifications of the District Judiciary for Court Managers of District Courts as well as this Court were different, it cannot be said that the selection to the District Court was d....
Contract employees appointed through a transparent selection process are entitled to regularization, aligning with principles of equality and fair treatment in public employment.
The regularisation of ad-hoc service cannot be claimed as of right and is subject to fulfilling specific conditions.
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.