IMPORTANT POINT
Regularization of casual employees must follow constitutional principles, ensuring equality and merit, and cannot be claimed retrospectively without sanctioned posts.

JUDGMENT :

(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 11.08.2018 passed in W.P.No.11681 of 2009.

The principles governing the regularisation and permanent absorption of casual/daily rated/temporary employees are settled by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1. Therefore, all other Judgments running counter to the legal principles settled by the Constitution Bench Judgment denuded to loose its status as precedent and the said dictum also has been reiterated by the Constituted Bench in para.54 of the Judgment in Uma Devi's case. The Apex Court in an unequivocal terms held that one time arrangement made by way of clarification under para.53 of the Judgment cannot be relied on in perpetuity. Therefore, Judgments or orders passed by the Courts, which are all not in consonance with the legal principles are to be construed as individualization of Justice or applicable to the facts of that case alone.

2. In the present case, admittedly, the appellants were initially engaged as farm labourers on daily wage basis. Since they continued as farm labourers for more than 10 years the Government issued orders to regularise these daily rate employees in the sanctioned posts in the time scale of pay. The benefit of regularization and permanent absorption granted to these daily rated farm labourers itself is a concession extended. Having accepted the regularisation and permanent absorption from the date of Government Order, the appellants have subsequently represented that their regularisation must be granted from the date of their respective initial date of appointments as daily wage farm labourers.

3. Such claims, in few cases, are considered by writ courts. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, the Division Bench also confirmed those orders in certain cases. However, those orders are held as individualization of Justice by the Constitution Bench. Therefore, we are not inclined to adopt those Judgments as precedents for the purpose of extending the benefit of regularisation with retrospective effect from the date of initial appointment of these farm labourers. In certain cases, the benefit of regularisation was granted from the date on which the labourers completed 10 years of service. The said principle also cannot be adopted in view of the fact that the Government in G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006, has clarified that the casual/daily rated employees, who have completed 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006 are eligible for regularization. But there is no mentioning about retrospective regularization as claimed by the respondents in the present case.

4. Equal opportunity in public employment is the Constitutional mandate. All appointments are to be made under the Constitutional schemes. Lakh and lakh of youth of our great nation are longing to secure public employment through open competitive process. Regularization or permanent absorption or back door appointments would result in infringement of the fundamental rights of the eligible candidates, who all are aspiring to secure public employment even under the Rule of reservation. Back door, illegal and irregular appointments are made either at the instance of the Authorities or with the recommendations of the VIP's or VVIP's. If such appointments end with an order of regularisation or permanent absorption, no doubt, the Constitutional scheme of appointments are dishonoured and the fundamental rights of all other citizens are infringed. Rule of reservation is important part under the constitution and regularizing these back door appointments, Rule of reservation has not been followed. No merit assessments are made. Admittedly, these temporary appointments are made not against sanctioned post. Thus, the regularization cannot be claimed as an absolute right b