The main legal point established in the judgment is that appointments must adhere to the necessary procedures for advertisement and competitive merit selection, and non-compliance may result in the denial of regularization and payment of regular salary.

Navin Sinha, J.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent University. The present appeal arises from order dated 17.1.2013 dismissing C.W.J.C. No. 8921/95. The Learned Single Judge held that the appellant not having been appointed in accordance with law on a vacant post and also having superannuated in the meantime, no directions for retrospective regularization could be made and neither could payment of any salary be directed arising out of an illegal appointment.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he was appointed by the Governing Body of the College as a demonstrator/lab in-charge in Zoology on 17.8.1971 for a period of six months which was extended from time to time. Permanent appointment was then made by the Governing Body of the college on 17.8.1971 in the same discipline subject to the concurrence of the University Service Commission.

3. One Ajay Kumar Roy was also in the panel recommended by the University Service Commission. Appointment of the latter and denial to the appellant led to C.W.J.C. No. 514/73. A Division Bench by order dated 21.6.1976 while dismissing the application observed that the appellant may be considered for appointment by the Governing Body if the work load so necessitated. Directions to consider on a later date in the exigency of work was therefore apparent. Pursuant thereto the appellant was appointed on 3.8.1984. The fact that it may have been given the nomenclature of daily wage was not relevant in view of the observations of the Court. The post of demonstrator in Zoology had become vacant because of the promotion of the said Shri Ajay Kumar Roy. The appellant was appointed on a vacant sanctioned post.

4. The college thereafter from 1985 kept writing to the University for approval of his appointment followed by repeated letters. These letters written from time to time themselves manifest discharge of duties by the appellant awaiting approval of the University. At times, the University also made queries from the college with regard to his appointment apparent from the letter of the Deputy Registrar dated 29.6.1981 duly replied on 2.11.1993 and other communications.

5. On 23.12.1989 the college again wrote to the University that the appointment of the appellant along with certain others had been made within the staffing pattern and therefore approval may be given. The fact that the appellant was appointed on a post was evidence that it was made within the staffing pattern. Referring to University letter dated 18.1.1992 addressed to the college it was submitted that the University was fully aware of the discharge of duties by the appellant on the post of demonstrator/lab in-charge in Zoology. On 23.8.1977, the Registrar of the University wrote directly to the appellant calling him for an interview for regularization of the appointment to appear on the specified date and time with all original documents mentioned therein. But nothing further transpired upon the same. Reliance was placed on Braj Kishore Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others (1997) 1 PLJR 509, to submit that if the appointment of the appellant was within the staffing pattern, he is entitled to regularization. Further reliance was placed on State of Karnataka and Others Vs. M.L. Kesari and Others (2010) 9 SCC 247, in support of the submission that the original appointment having been made against a vacant sanctioned post, he having worked for over ten years the appellant was required to be regularized. It was lastly contended that the appellant had also appended photo copy of his attendance register which demonstrated discharge of duties. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, in any event, he is at least entitled to his remuneration on daily wage basis for discharge of duties as a Demonstrator/Lab In-Charge in Zoology.

6. Learned counsel for the University opposing the application submitted that the recommendation of the University Service Commission lost its relevance when C.W.J.C. N