Back
1996 Supreme(Pat) 640
PATNA HIGH COURT
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.
Chandra Shekhar Prasad
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4097 of 1995 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 26, 1996
Illegal appointments made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India cannot be regularized, and the government's policy of terminating such appointments is valid and in public interest.
Headnote:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 14, 16 - APPOINTMENT - DAILY WAGE EMPLOYEES - TERMINATION OF SERVICES - REGULARISATION - GOVERNMENT POLICY - PUBLIC INTEREST - BACKDOOR APPOINTMENTS - JUDICIAL REVIEW - ILLEGAL APPOINTMENTS - RETRENCHMENT - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 25-F.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, daily wage employees, challenged the termination of their services and the government notification terminating the services of daily wage employees who had not completed 240 days of service before August 1, 1986. Petitioners claimed their appointments were regularized and they acquired a right to be absorbed in the services of the respondents. They also argued that their termination was in the nature of retrenchment in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' initial appointments were not through any legitimate selection process and were made in a manner inconsistent with the concept of equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The court also noted the government's decision to stop such ad hoc appointments with effect from August 1, 1985, was taken in public interest to address the issue of illegal appointments made without following proper legal procedures.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners' initial appointments were valid and in accordance with the law. 2. Whether the petitioners acquired a right to be absorbed in the services of the respondents by virtue of their service. 3. Whether the termination of the petitioners' services amounted to retrenchment in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. Whether the government's policy of terminating the services of daily wage employees appointed after August 1, 1985, was valid and in public interest.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioners' initial appointments were illegal and not made in compliance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, they did not acquire any right to be absorbed in the services of the respondents. 2. The court observed that the government's decision to stop ad hoc appointments and terminate the services of daily wage employees appointed after August 1, 1985, was based on public interest and was not opposed to the principles enunciated under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners' initial appointments were illegal and opposed to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, no relief could be granted to them.
A.K.Ganguly, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by Sri Chandra Shekhar Prasad and 13 others challenging, inter alia the order by which their services have been terminated and also notification No. 5940 dated 18th June, 1993 issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna where from it appears that the respondents have decided to terminate the services of those daily wage employees who have not completed 240 days of service before 1st August, 1986.
2. The facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner were employed in various Class IV posts of Roller Driver, Roller Attendant, Chowkidar and Driver with the respondents authorities in this Rural Development Department under the Rural Engineering Organisation which, according to the petitioner, has five Divisions at different places. The petitioner were employed at Sherghati Division in Megadh Circle. They were initially appointed in the said post on daily wage basic after advertisement on the notice board. In the writ petition, the petitioner have not stated anywhere. that they were appointed pursuant to a regular selection process and interview, on the other hand they have stated that they were appointed by the competent authority between the years 1986 and 1990. It has, however, been alleged that the posts against which the petitioner were appointed were sanctioned posts in muster roll from 1987 to 1994. For the said purpose, the petitioners have purportedly relied on a notification No. 686 dated 28th August, 1988 in order to show that the respondents authorities have decided that an employee having more than 5 years of satisfactory service shall be absorbed by the respondents State. The petitioner have also asserted that they have worked satisfactorily on the post to which they were appointed. The petitioners have also alleged that in the year 1991-92 with the approval of the Minister, Rural Engineering Organisation Department, a high level Establishment Committee was constituted to scrutinise and examine the cases of individual employees for absorption in regular posts against which the petitioners were working. It has further been averred that the said Establishment Committee after scrutiny of the cases of the petitioners recommended their cases for absorption in the regular cadre against the sanctioned posts. It support of the aforesaid assertion, the petitioners have disclosed certain documents issued in the year 1990 under the signature of the Superintending Engineer. From those documents which are annexure-6 series it will appear that the appointment of the petitioners in the pay scale of Rs. 775-1025 was made provisionally and they were also given the benefit of Dearness Allowance and other allowances. But the respondents have disclosed in their counter affidavit in paragraph 5 that such alleged absorption of the services of the petitioners was not sanctioned by the State Government and when the said fact came to the light of the respondents, the Chief Engineer cancelled the same and asked for an explanation from the Superintending Engineer by his memo No. 283 dated 23rd November, 1990. A copy of the said memo has been referred to in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit used in this proceeding by respondent Nos. 3 to 5. Thereafter learned Counsel for the respondents by filing a supplementary counter affidavit in this matter has disclosed the said order of the Chief Engineer dated 3rd November, 1990.
3. From a perusal of the said order dated 3rd November, 1990 issued by the Chief Engineer, it is clear that the Chief Engineer wanted an explanation from the Superintending Engineer directing him to disclose the authority under which the services of the petitioners were allegedly regularised as, according to the Chief Engineer, such appointments are illegal and ought to be terminated with immediate effect. Such explanation was to be submitted by the Superintending Engineer within seven days from the date of the issue of
