Rajasthan High Court
Honble RAJESH BALIA & K.K. ACHARYA, JJ.
Bhawani Singh - Appellant
Versus
State & Ors. - Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3271 of 2001 & 17 Ors. Petitions
Decided On : July 23, 2002
Secs. 9 & 11 read in light of Sec. 19 of the Act of 1999 are declared ultra vires the Constitution being violative of Arts. 14, 16 and 21 read with Arts. 39, 41 and 42 of the Constitution.
The said provisions are otherwise inoperative for the reason of their apparent repugnancy with I.D. Act 1947, which is a law made by Parliament in respect of subject matters enumerated in entries 22, 23 and 24 of Concurrent List, and field is exhaustively occupied by existing law and the State Legislation has not been reserved for consideration of the President and has not received his assent as required under Art. 254(2) of the Constitution.
Any order refusing claim to regularisation and consequent termination as well as any claim to regularisation can be made subject to remedial forums for adjudication as may be available under law. Sec. 11 being held ultra vires such claims cannot be refused to be adjudicated by the concerned forum by invoking Sec.11.
The claims to regularisation, which have already been adjudicated and become final, there shall be no impediment in execution and implementation of such order, decree or award in accordance with law.
Rest of the provisions of the Act, cannot be said to suffer from any such infirmity. Remai- ning provisions neither transgress the filed in respect of which State legislature is com- petent to make law nor can be said to repugnant to any law made by Central Act in respect of subject matter for which Parliament is competent to make law. (Para 208)
Brief View of Impugned Provisions
(2). As per its preamble, the Rajasthan State Legislature enacted the Rajasthan (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff) Act, 1999 (hereinafter called, `the Act of 1999) to regulate appointments in the public service and prohibit irregular appointments in offices and establishments under the control of the State Government, local authorities, public corporations and Universities etc.
(3). In brief, the scheme of the Act is that all services in any office established under the State Government, local authorities, a Govt. company or undertaking wholly owned or controlled by the State Govt., a body established under any law made by the legislature of the State whether incorporated or not, including a University and any other body established by the State Government or a society registered under any law relating to the registration of societies for the time being in force and receiving funds from the State Government either fully or partly for its maintenance, or any educational institution whether registered or not but receiving aid from the State Government have been treated as `Public Service for the purposes of the Act of 1999. Providing this enlarged definition of `public service under Sec. 2(v), the Act defined `Daily Wage employee under Sec. 2(ii) and considered all appointments other than of those who are selected and appointed on a sanctioned post in accordance with the relevant rules on a regular basis to be `daily wage employees for the purposes of the Act.
(4). With these premise, under Sec. 4(1) the Act prohibits appointment of any person in any public service to any post, in any class, category or grade as `a daily wage employee. However, it made an exception under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 4 by making a provision that no urgent temporary appointment shall be made in any public service to any post, in any class, category or grade except with the prior permission of the competent authority and such appointments shall have to be consistent with such conditions as may be imposed by such competent authority. The competent authority was authorised to lay down the conditions under which alone any urgent temporary appointments could be made.
(5). Under Sec. 5, creation of any post in any office or establishment relating to public service was made subject to the previous sanction of the competent authority and appointments made on a post created without the previous sanction of the competent authority was declared to be invalid under Sec. 5(2) of the Act. Such appointments were subjected to the restrictions/prohibitions contained in Secs. 8,9 & 15 of the Act of 1999.
(6). Sec. 8 inter-alia provides that the Treasury Officer/Sub Treasury Officer or Accounts Officer or any other officer or authority who is charged with the responsibility of passing the salary bill shall not pass such first bill of any person appointed to public service in violation of Sec. 7 or Sec. 4(2) of the Act of 1999.
(7). As noticed above, sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 4 ordains that urgent temporary appointment in any public service henceforth shall be made only with the prior permission of the competent authority and subject to conditions imposed by him. Sec. 7 is captioned as ``Regulation of recruitment. Recruitments have been categorised into three classes.
(8). Thus, providing for creation of new posts subject to the sanction of competent authority and urgent temporary appointments al
1. Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs. A Rajappa & Ors. (AIR 1978 SC 548)
8. State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh (AIR 1992 SC 2130)
11. Ashwani Kumar vs. State of Bihar (AIR 1997 SC 1628)
12. Arun Kumar Rout vs. State of Bihar (AIR 1998 SC 1477)
13. H.D. Singh vs. Reserve Bank of India (AIR 1986 SC 132)
15. State of Assam vs. Kanak Chandra Dutta (AIR 1967 SC 884)
16. Gujarat Agriculture University vs. Labhu Bechar (AIR 2001 SCW 351)
20. J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. vs. Labour Appellate Tribunal (AIR 1964 SC 737)
22. Indian Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India (AIR 1995 SC 962)
28. Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd. vs. Brojo Nath (AIR 1986 SC 1571)
30. Bombay Telephone Canteen Employees Association vs. Union of India (AIR 1997 SC 2817)
33. Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India (AIR 1984 SC 802)
35. E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1974 SC 555)
36. Meneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597)
37. Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy vs. State of & Kashmir (AIR 1980 SC 1992)
38. Ajay Hasiyas case (AIR 1981 SC 487)
40. State of Madras vs. Gannon Dunkerley (AIR 1958 SC 560)
44. State of J&K vs. M.S. Farooqi (AIR 1972 SC 1738)
46. Peoples Union of Democratic Rights vs. U.O.I. (AIR 1982 SC 1473)
50. State of Bombay vs. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha (AIR 1960 SC 610)
51. Bombay Union of journalists vs. State of Bombay (AIR 1964 SC 1617)
3. Dhirendra Chamoli & Another vs. State of U.P. (1986 (1) SCC 637)
4. Daily Rated Casual Labour vs. Union of India (1988 (1) SCC 122)
5. Jacob M. Puthuparamibil vs. Kerala Water Authority (1991 (1) SCC 28)
7. P & T Deptt. through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch vs. Union of India (1988 (1) SCC 122)
10. K.S. Mahalingegowda vs. Secy to govt.
17. Mool Raj Upadhavava vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316)
19. Bhagwati Prasad vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation (1990 (1) SCC 361)
21. Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union vs. Delhi Administration
23. Union of India vs. Bishamber Dutt (1996 (11) SCC 341)
24. E. Ramakrishnan vs. State of Kerala (1996 (10) SCC 565)
25. P. Ravindran vs. Union Territory of Pondicherry (1997 (1) SCC 350)
26. R.S. Ajara vs. State of Gujarat (1997 (3) SCC 641)
27. W.B.S.E.B. vs. Desh Bandhu Ghosh (1985 (3) SCC 116)
31. Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post vs. Theyyam Joseph (1996 (8) SCC 489)
41. Delhi Cloth & Gen. Mills. Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India (1983 (4) SCC 166)
48. St. Stephens College vs. University of Delhi (1992 (1) SCC 558)
34. Union of India vs. Hindustan Development Corpn. (AIR 1994 SC 988)
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.