SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(Raj) 885

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

Advocates Appeared:
M.Mridul, Sr. Advocate, assisted by R.S. Saluja, G.K. Vyas & P.R. Mehta, for Petitioners Sagar Mal Mehta, Advocate General, assisted by Sandeep Bhandawat R.L. Jangid, Addl. Advocate General. R.P. Dave, Kusum Rao & S.R. Sharma, for Respondents

Headnote:Rajasthan (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services & Rationalisation of Staff) Act, 1999, Sec. 2(v), 9, 11 & 19; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sec. 25; Constitution of India, Art. 14,16,21,39,41 & 42 – Regulating appointments and prohibiting irregular appointments in public service–Non- regularisation and consequential termination of services – Constitutional validity of the provisions of the act – Held – Industrial Disputes Act being central enactment has overriding effect over the Act of 1999 which is a State enact- ment – Mere continuance for long period does not confer an indefeasible right in favour of incumbent for regularisation in all circumstances – Any order refusing claim to regularisation and consequential termination can be made subject to remedial forum as many be available under the law – Such claim cannot be refused by invoking Sec.11 – The claims to regularisation which have already been adjudicated and become final, there shall be no impediment in execution of such order, decree or award in accordance with law–Secs. 9,11, 19 and part of Sec.2(v) being violative to Arts.14, 16,21,39,41 and 42 of the Constitution declared ultra vires. (Para 208)

       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)

Honble BALIA, J.–The common issue raised in all these cases is the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Regulation of Appointments to Public Services Rationalisation of Staff Act, 1999 (hereinafter called Act of 1999). Various provisions of the Act more particularly Ss. 2(v), 9, 11 and 19 of the Act are being assailed as ultra vires. Consequent relief has been asked in each petition, as we shall notice later on, to quash the directions issued and order passed in pursuance there of under the provisions of Act of 1999.

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



















































































































































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top