Appointments made on a co-terminus basis do not confer rights for regularization without formulated rules under relevant statutes, as established in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi.

ORAL JUDGMENT

08/Dated: 05 th September, 2023

1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 07.06.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6399 of 2011 by which the writ petition has been dismissed declining to pass positive direction for consideration of the case of the writ petitioner for regularization by implementing the decision of the Board of Directors of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority (in short RRDA) resolved in its meeting held on 10.11.2008.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which require to be enumerated herein, read as under:

The writ-petitioner was appointed vide office order no.117/06 contained in Memo No. 1174 dated 01.09.2006 on the post of Computer Operator on the honorarium of Rs.5,500/- per month w.e.f. 01.09.2006.

It is the case of the writ petitioner that the Board of Directors of RRDA in its meeting held on 10.11.2008 has decided that the service of the writ- petitioner will continue even after completion of the tenure of the said Chairman. But, the services of the writ petitioner and other benefits attached to the said post along with the salary had been stopped. Thereafter, the writ petitioner made several representations before the authorities but no heed had been paid to the said representations.

Being aggrieved by the said action of the authorities, the writ petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court being W.P.(S) No. 6399 of 2011 which has been dismissed against which the instant appeal has been preferred.

3. It appears from the pleading made in the writ petition that the writ-petitioner who was appointed on co-terminus basis vide order dated 01.09.2006 had joined the services and started discharging his duties with the then Chairman of RRDA, namely, R.N. Tiwari. A meeting was held on 10.11.2008 wherein decision was taken allowing the writ petitioner to discharge his duties even after the tenure of the then Chairman. The writ petitioner basis upon the said decision taken by the committee has ventilated his grievance allowing him to continue in service but he had not been paid salary and hence, he has made representations with the prayer for regularization for his services and arrears of salary.

Since grievance having not been redressed, the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6399 of 2011 was filed but the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 and considering the entry of appointment of the writ petitioner has refused to pass positive direction by dismissing the writ petition against which the present appeal has been preferred.

4. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Roy, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner has submitted by referring to the provision of Section 6(2) of the RRDA Act, whereby and whereunder, power has been vested upon the authority for making rule for appointment.

It has been contended that if the power has been conferred upon the RRDA as under Section 6(2) and in that view of the matter if the decision has been taken by the committee in the meeting held on 10.11.2008 allowing the writ petitioner to continue in the services even after the tenure of the then Chairman, the same cannot be said to be improper.

Further, since the committee has taken a conscious decision for continuation of the writ petitioner in services, hence, that is to be considered as a measure for regularization of the writ petitioner in service, but, the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact in the light of the provision of Section 6(2) of the BRDA Act rather by relying upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi (3) (supra) has dismissed the writ petition which cannot be said to be justified.

It has been contended that the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Secreta