Back
2009 Supreme(All) 828
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S.Rafat Alam, Sudhir Agarwal
AJAI KUMAR DUBEY
Versus
FARRUKHABAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD
Decided On : 19 March 2009
Special Appeal No. 1888 of 2008
Beena Mishra, Shesh Kumar,
Illegal appointments contrary to regulations do not confer any right upon the employee, and the employer has the right to terminate such appointments.
Headnote:
Regularization - Co-operative Societies - U.P. Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments (on Posts within the Purview of the U.P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board) Regulations, 1985, First Amendment Regulation 1990 - The court discussed the U.P. Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments Regulations, 1985 and the First Amendment Regulation 1990, highlighting the requirements for regularization of ad hoc employees of co-operative societies and the need for approval from the Board for appointments.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Shri Ajay Kumar Dubey, sought regularization of his employment in a co-operative society. His appointment was initially made for a temporary period and later on a permanent basis, both of which were found to be illegal and contrary to regulations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's appointments were illegal and contrary to regulations, and therefore, the employer had the right to terminate his services. The court also dismissed the appellant's claim for relief.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the appellant's appointments, the requirement for approval from the Board for co-operative society appointments, and the effect of an interim order obtained in a writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that illegal appointments contrary to regulations do not confer any right upon the employee, and the employer has the right to terminate such appointments. The court also emphasized that an interim order obtained in a writ petition cannot confer permanent advantage to the petitioner if the petition is ultimately found to lack merit.
Final Decision: The special appeal was dismissed for lacking merit, and no costs were awarded.
2. Shri Shesh Kumar, Advocate assisted by Km. Beena Mishra, Advocate appeared for the appellant contended that the Honble Single Judge has declined to consider the claim of the appellant with respect to regularization on the ground that no amendment in the regulation has been shown to the effect that cut off date prescribed earlier as 1. 5. 1983 was extended to 1. 10. 1986 though such amendment was made and, therefore, the appellant is entitled to be considered for regularization under this amended regulation. He further contended that the Honble Single Judge has erred in observing that on 15. 12. 1987 there were no rules permitting regularization of the employees appointed in the year 1985 as he has omitted to consider the U. P. Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments (on the post within the purview of the U. P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board) (First Amendment) Regulation, 1990
(hereinafter referred to as the First Amendment Regulation 1990) published in the U. P. Gazette dated 25. 8. 1990.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. It is no doubt true that for the purposes of regularization of ad hoc employees of co-operative societies, which were made against the posts, which were within the purview of Co-operative Societies Institutional Service Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board), the regulation was framed in the year 1985 i. e. U. P. Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments (on Posts within the Purview of the U. P. Co- operative Institutional Service Board) Regulations, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 1985 Regulations ). The said regulation was also amended by the First Amendment Regulation 1990, which was published in the U. P. Gazette dated 25. 8. 1990, a copy whereof has been placed on record along with a brief note of written arguments taken on record. Therefore, the Honble Single Judge in so far as it has observed that there is no rules providing for regularization of employees of co-operative societies appointed in the year 1985 is not correct and it appears that the appellant having failed to place the aforesaid amended regulation before the Honble Single Judge, the said observation has been made.
5. However, this, by itself, would not help the appellant for claiming regularization under the aforesaid rules unless he could show that he is an employee said to have been appointed on ad hoc basis since the aforesaid rules are applicable only to the persons, who were appointed on ad hoc basis and not to others.
6. The capacities in which a person can be employed by an employer i. e. the nature of appointment, are well known in service jurisprudence. Broadly, a person can be appointed on temporary basis or substantive basis. This includes an appointment of a person on substantive basis but initially made on probation. The temporary appointment may be officiating, ad hoc, stop gap, tenure appointment etc. Besides, a person can be employed on daily wage basis, contractual basis on fixed term, substitute appointment etc. All these appointments may have different characteristic and not necessarily can be placed in a common category. They also cannot be dealt with generally in homogeneous category i. e. constituting one class. In other words, all these kind of appointments cannot be placed in a common category. A person appointed for fixed tenure and further for payment of fixed salary stand on different pedestal. Thus, a person appointed on minimum of pay scale applicable to a regular employee but without undergoing process of selection and also without any limitation of period may fall within the category of "ad hoc appointment".
7. From the own case of the appellant, it is evident that he made an application to the R
