Back
2003 Supreme(Gau) 575
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (KOHIMA BENCH)
B. LAMARE, J.
Mhonthung Odyuo and Ors. – Appellant
Vs.
State of Nagaland and Ors. – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 34 (K) of 2002
Decided On: 11.12.2003
Advocate Appeared
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: T. Koza, Samuel Risom and Ashipri Zho, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: I. Jamir and Y. Long Kumer, Advs.
The appointments of the Petitioners were made without following the rules, and therefore, the Petitioners cannot claim the benefit of regularisation.
Headnote:
Regularisation - Appointment of LDA, Stenographer Grade III and Typist - Nagaland Secretariat Subordinate Service Rules 1972, Nagaland Secretariat (Civil) Service Rules 1973 - Rules 6.2, 7(b) - The appointments of the Petitioners without following the rules cannot be directed to be regularised. The appointments were made dehors the Rule, floating all norms of fairness to winds, and the appointments were issued at the whims of the appointing authority without following the Rules. The Petitioners cannot claim such benefit of the illegal appointments made without following the Rules.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners were appointed as LDA, Stenographer Grade III, and Typist in the Nagaland Civil Secretariat on contract, substitute, or adhoc basis. Their services were extended from time to time. The Government issued a notice for the selection of casual employees, and subsequently, appointment orders were issued for LDAs, Stenographers, and Typists on fixed pay, which aggrieved the Petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the appointments of the Petitioners were made without following the rules and cannot be directed to be regularised. The appointments were made dehors the Rule, floating all norms of fairness to winds, and the appointments were issued at the whims of the appointing authority without following the Rules.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appointments of the Petitioners, made without following the rules, could be directed to be regularised.
Ratio Decidendi: The appointments of the Petitioners were made dehors the Rule, floating all norms of fairness to winds, and the appointments were issued at the whims of the appointing authority without following the Rules. Therefore, the Petitioners cannot claim the benefit of the illegal appointments made without following the Rules.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, vacated the interim order, and allowed the Petitioners to apply and appear in the selection process by relaxing their age if the posts are to be advertised in the future. No order as to costs was made.
B. Lamare, J.
1. Heard Mr. T. Koza, learned Counsel for the Petitioners as well as Mr. I. Jamir, learned Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mrs. Y. Longkumer for the Respondents.
2. The Petitioners 254 in numbers were appointed as LDA, Stenographer Grade III and Typist in the Nagaland Civil Secretariat by different appointment orders issued during the period 1991-2000. The appointment of all the Petitioners were made on contract, substitute or on Adhoc basis. All of them were appointed initially for a specific period mentioned in the appointment orders. However, the services of the Petitioners were extended from time to time.
3. While the Petitioners were serving, a notice dated 8.8.01 was issued by the Government in the Home Department intimating the dates for selection of casual employees in Nagaland Civil Secretariat whose term of appointment has not been extended and those who are on extension of their services. The dates of interview for LDAs, Typist and Stenos were fixed on 24.8.01, 27.8.01 and 28.8.01. The said notice was issued on the basis of the earlier notification dated 13.7.01 by which the Government constituted the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee after completion of the selection process submitted its report dated 10.10.01 whereby 135 LDAs, 52 Stenographers and 110 Typists were selected by the Selection Committee. On the recommendation of the Selection Committee the Government in the Home Department issued appointment orders for LDAs, Stenographers and Typists vide 3 (three) orders dated 16.11.01. By the said 3 orders the LDAs and Stenographers were appointed on fixed pay of Rs. 3,500/- p.m. and the Typists were appointed on fixed pay of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. It is these 3 orders by which the Petitioners were aggrieved in this writ petition.
4. The case of the Petitioners is that they were appointed on regular scale of pay and that they have been continuing in service for many years by virtue of their extension of service from time to time by the competent authority. The Petitioners were in continuous service right from the date of their appointment till the said impugned orders were issued by which their regular scale of pay were converted into a fixed pay. Therefore, according to the Petitioners they were discriminated and no opportunity was afforded to them before reducing their pay to fixed pay. It is also the case of the Petitioners that after they have rendered service for long time and they had high hope that their services would be regularised. But by the impugned orders the Petitioners have been put into great hardship by reducing their pay to a fixed pay.
5. The Respondents contested the claim of the Petitioners and stated that the Petitioners were appointed on contract/substitute basis and had continued in service without sanctioned posts. Their appointments were made without vacancies and their services in no way can be regularised without following the procedure for making appointment as per the rules. It is also stated that no right has accrued to the Petitioners. The Respondents also contended that in order to examine irregular appointments made by the Respondents. High Power Committee was constituted to assess the requirements of posts of various categories in the Secretariat and this Committee had recommended for appointing certain number of employees on fixed pay out of the employees found in excess of the sanctioned posts. The pay of the casual employees was also fixed by the High Power Committee.
6. It is further contended by the Respondents that the Selection Committee for this purpose was appointed and this Selection Committee had selected the employees who were found to be in excess of the sanctioned post and recommended for appointment of the various categories of post on fixed pay. It is also stated that the selection test conducted by the Selection Committee was not for regularisation of the service of the Petitioners but to select suitable candidates for appointment on casual
