1998 Supreme(Cal) 76

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Satyabrata Sinha, Ronojit Kumar Mitra, JJ.
Director of Public Instructions of W.B. & Ors.
Vs.
Dr. Ashish Pal & Ors.
MAT. No. 1145 of 1997
Decided On : February 23, 1998

Regularisation of services cannot be directed in cases where the appointment was made in violation of recruitment rules, as it would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - REGULARISATION OF SERVICES - APPOINTMENT WITHOUT FOLLOWING RECRUITMENT RULES - VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 14 AND 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - REGULARISATION NOT POSSIBLE - APPOINTMENT MADE IN VIOLATION OF RECRUITMENT RULES IS ILLEGAL - REGULARISATION CANNOT BE DIRECTED.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a part-time lecturer in plant protection at Netaji Mahavidyalaya, Hooghly, sought regularisation of his services. He was initially appointed in 1987 at a monthly remuneration of Rs. 1,000/-. University Grants Commission (UGC) sanctioned his pay for four years, after which it discontinued the financial liability. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court seeking a direction to the respondents to sanction a second post and to consider his absorption in the said institution. A learned single Judge of the High Court directed the respondents to consider the question of according sanction for a second post and to send the proposal to the Finance Department, and thereafter to consider the question of absorption of the petitioner. A second post was created by the Government, but the petitioner's name was not recommended by the College Service Commission, and his case for absorption could not be considered. The petitioner filed another writ petition praying for his absorption in the plant protection department with retrospective effect. The learned trial Judge allowed the writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The Calcutta High Court held that the petitioner's services could not be regularised as his appointment was made without following the recruitment rules. The Court observed that the petitioner was not selected as a part-time lecturer by any valid selection committee in terms of the extant rules. It further held that the petitioner was not validly appointed and that, in any event, the inaction on the part of the College Service Commission could not be a ground for directing relaxation of the recruitment rules. The Court also held that the petitioner's appointment was not a backdoor one, but it could not be said to be dehors the statute as the College Service Commission was not required to be considered for the purpose of a temporary employee. However, the Court held that whenever a permanent post has to be filled up, the provisions of the relevant statutes must be followed in the matter of recruitment.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's services could be regularised despite his appointment being made without following the recruitment rules? 2. Whether the inaction on the part of the College Service Commission could be a ground for directing relaxation of the recruitment rules?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioner's services could not be regularised as his appointment was made without following the recruitment rules. The Court observed that the petitioner was not selected as a part-time lecturer by any valid selection committee in terms of the extant rules. It further held that the petitioner was not validly appointed and that, in any event, the inaction on the part of the College Service Commission could not be a ground for directing relaxation of the recruitment rules. 2. The Court held that the inaction on the part of the College Service Commission could not be a ground for directing relaxation of the recruitment rules. The Court observed that the College Service Commission was a statutory body entrusted with the duty of selecting persons for appointment to the posts of Teachers of a College. The Court held that the Commission's recommendation was a sine qua non for appointment and that in the absence of such recommendation, the petitioner's appointment could not be regularised.

Final Decision: The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the learned trial Judge. The Court held that the petitioner's services could not be regularised as his appointment was made without following the recruitment rules.