IMPORTANT POINT
Appointments in public service must comply with constitutional mandates and recruitment rules; backdoor appointments cannot be regularized.

JUDGMENT :

S.M. Subramaniam, J.

Equal opportunity in public employment is the constitutional mandate. All appointments into the public services are to be made only under the constitutional scheme and by following the Recruitment Rules in force. Appointment to Sanctioned posts are to be made through open competitive process by affording equal opportunity to all the eligible candidates, who all are aspiring to secure public employment.

2. Irregular, illegal and back door appointments cannot be regularised. Lakhs and Lakhs of youth of our Great Nation are burning their mid-night oil and thriving hard to secure public employment through open competitive process. Appointing candidates through back door method would infringe the fundamental rights of those eligible candidates. Therefore, the State is duty bound to ensure that the constitutional mandates are honoured and implemented in its letter and spirit while recruiting candidates for public posts.

3. Admittedly, in the present writ appeals, the 1st respondent in all the writ appeals were engaged as daily rated employees in the Department of Water Resources Organisation. All the respondents have been engaged to perform duties relating to fitter, Plumber, Electrician etc., and admittedly their names are in the rolls of Nominal Muster Roll (NMR). No order of appointment has been issued to these daily rated employees. As and when their services are required, the authorities of the water resources organisation engage them and pay daily wages.

4. Mr. S. Silamabanan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent in W.A.No.2138 of 2019 would submit that the respondents are continuously working as daily rated employees. Their works are necessary in the Department of Water Resources Organisation and in Atomic Power Plant.

5. Admittedly, the respondents have not been appointed in sanctioned posts in the time scale of pay in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force.

6. Writ Petitions are filed seeking direction to the Principal Secretary to Government Public Works Department to pass orders on the petitioners representation dated 02.07.2016 and to regularise the services of the writ petitioners.

7. The daily rated / casual / consolidated pay / temporary employees were not appointed against the sanctioned post by following the Service Rules in force. The legal position in this regard are considered by the Constitution 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.

8. The Apex Court in unequivocal terms held that irregular, illegal and back door appointments cannot be regularised. In paragraph 54 of the judgment the Constitution Bench reiterated that those decisions, which run counter to the principles settled in Uma Devi’s case or in which the directions running counter to what the Constitution Bench held in Uma Devi’s case will stand denuded for their status as precedent. Therefore, the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding on all the Courts across the Country and Law of the Land.

9. Subsequently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Secretary to Government School Education Department, Chennai Vs. R. Govindaswamy and Others reported in 2014 (4) SCC 769 reiterated the principles by referring the case in State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Daya Lal and Others reported in (2011) 2 SCC 429, which reads as under;

“8. ......................

(i) The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not issue a direction for regularisation of services of an empl