An appointment made de hors the rules, without proper competition among qualified persons, does not confer any right on the appointee, and directing reinstatement in cases of illegal termination would perpetuate the illegality.

JUDGMENT :

Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J.

1. This miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed against the Award dated 29/11/2019 passed by Labour Court, No. 3, Gwalior in Case No. 06/A/ID Act/2016(R) by which a direction has been given to the respondent No. 1 to pay compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on the vacant post of Computer Operator on daily wages vide resolution passed by Janpad Panchayat, Guna in its general body meeting, dated 27/07/2007 and accordingly, the petitioner was appointed by order dated 08/08/2007 and he was attached to the Office of respondent no. 2 for election duty from 01/11/2008, but the salary was being paid by respondent No. 1. The petitioner has worked till 05/03/2015 and by order dated 05/03/2015, his services were terminated. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by approaching the Labour Court, who decided the case in favour of the petitioner and held that the termination of the petitioner is bad in law, however, in lieu of reinstatement, the Labour Court has awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Accordingly, it is prayed that since the petitioner had worked for about eight years, therefore, he should have been granted reinstatement instead of compensation.

3. Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was appointed de hors the rules and his appointment was illegal and was a backdoor entry and after considering this aspect, the Labour Court has awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

5. In the present case, the Labour Court has come to a conclusion that the original appointment of the petitioner was a backdoor entry. The petitioner in his writ petition has not pointed out as to how his initial appointment was legal. It is the contention of the petitioner that since he was appointed in compliance of the resolution passed by general body meeting of Janpad Panchayat, Guna, therefore, his appointment was legal. This contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted.

6. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 has not considered the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, therefore, the Court below committed material illegality by denying the relief of reinstatement on the ground that the petitioner has failed to prove that his appointment was in accordance with law.

7. Article 16 of the Constitution of India reads as under :

''16. Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.--(1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.

(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State.

(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the Government of, or any local or other authority within, a State or Union territory, any requirement as to residence within that State or Union territory prior to such employment or appointment.

(4) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. (4-A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately