IMPORTANT POINT
The Courts cannot encourage appointments which are made outside the constitutional scheme and it is improper for the courts to give any direction for regularization of the person who has not been appointed by following the procedure laid down under Articles 14, 16 and 309 of the Constitution.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW—Constitution of India—Articles 14, 16 and 309—Appointments to public offices—Claim of regularization in public employment—It would be improper for courts to give directions for regularization of services of the person who is working either as daily wager, ad hoc employee, probationer, temporary or contractual employee, not appointed following the procedure laid down—Appellant was appointed for a period of three months on contractual basis for conducting a survey—Renewal of contract from time to time—Appellant aggrieved by the oral termination and/or non continuation in service filed a writ petition—According to respondents, appellant’s appointment being on contractual basis, his services came to an end after the period of contract was completed—Appellant submitted that he has been working continuously for 14 years and was entitled to be regularized in service—Whether High Court was justified in dismissing appellant’s claim observing that he has no right to the post—(Yes)—There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court.
       Held : In the instant case, the appellant has continued in service for 14 years because of the interim order granted by the High Court on 15.9.1992. In the aforesaid case, the Constitution Bench has observed that merely because an employee had continued under cover of an order of the court, which the court described as "litigious employment", he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service.(Para 26)
       Admittedly, the appellant has not been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.(Para 29)
       The courts cannot encourage appointments which are made outside the constitutional scheme and it is improper for the courts to give any direction for regularization of the person who has not been appointed by following the procedure laid down under Articles 14, 16 and 309 of the Constitution.(Para 31)
       Our constitutional scheme clearly envisages equality of opportunity in public employment. The Founding Fathers of the Constitution intended that no one should be denied opportunity of being considered for public employment on the ground of sex, caste, place of birth, residence and religion. This part of the constitutional scheme clearly reflects strong desire and constitutional philosophy to implement the principle of equality in the true sense in the matter of public employment.(Para 39)
       In view of the clear and unambiguous constitutional scheme, the courts cannot countenance appointments to public office which have been made against the constitutional scheme. In the backdrop of constitutional philosophy, it would be improper for the courts to give directions for regularization of services of the person who is working either as daily-wager, ad hoc employee, probationer, temporary or contractual employee, not appointed following the procedure laid down under Articles 14, 16 and 309 of the Constitution. In our constitutional scheme, there is no room for back door entry in the matter of public employment.(Para 40)

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.—Leave granted.

2. Regularization in public employment is the main issue which falls for adjudication in this appeal.

3. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.10.2003 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 6475 of 1992 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, UP.

4. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the appeal are recapitulated as under:

The appellant was appointed by Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, U.P., vide order dated 17.7.1989, for a period of three months on contractual basis on a remuneration of Rs.1,500/- for conducting a survey in the deficiency of procurement of the agricultural produce of Meerut Division, namely, Potato etc. Since the nature of employment has been disputed by the appellant, therefore, we deem it appropriate to set out the relevant portion of the order dated 17.7.1989 as under:

"Shri Surinder Prasad Tiwari, 17, Rana Partap Marg, Lucknow, is hereby appointed for a period of three months only, on contractual basis on a remuneration of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) per month for conducting a survey in the deficiency of procurement of the agricultural produce of Meerut Division, namely Potato etc.

The services of Shri Tiwari shall stand terminated automatically after the expiry of the above period of three months and his services can also be terminated earlier also without assigning any reason, if there is no need or under special circumstances. However, no compensation will be given to Shri Tiwari in this regard.

Sd/- Vijendra Pal

Director, Mandi."

5. The appellant, on 6.12.1989, was again appointed for a period of three months on contractual basis on a remuneration of Rs.1500/- for surveying the land of the village community and to determine whether Gramin Bazar/Haat is held on the lands of Gram Samaj or Zila Parishad and how many wholesalers/commission agents were working. The relevant part of order dated 6.12.1989 reads as under:

"In continuation of the efforts of the Mandi Parishad for terminating/abolishing prevalent system of Tehbazari in the Faizabad and Gorakhpur Divisions, Shri Surinder Prasad Tiwari through Shri V.P. Mishra, 17, Rana Partap Marg, Lucknow, is hereby appointed for a period of three months only, on contractual basis on a remuneration of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) per month for conducting a survey of the following works-

(1)Details of the land of the village community;

(2)Whether Gramin Bazar/Haat is held on the lands of Gram Samaj or Zila Parishad;

(3)How many wholesalers/commission agents are working.

The services of Shri Tiwari shall stand terminated automatically after the expiry of the above period and his services can be terminated earlier also without assigning any reason, if there is no need or under special circumstances. However, no compensation will be given to Shri Tiwari in this regard.

Sd/- Arvind Mohan

Director, Mandi"

6. On 23.3.1990, the appellant was again appointed on contractual basis for a period of five months. The relevant part of the order dated 23.3.1990 reads as follows:

"In continuation of the efforts of the Mandi Parishad terminating/abolishing prevalent system of Tehbazari in the Faizabad and Gorakhpur Divisions, Shri Surinder Prasad Tiwari, 17, Rana Partap Marg, Lucknow, is hereby appointed for a period of five months, on contractual basis, on a remuneration of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) per month for conducting a survey of the following works-

(1)Details of the land of the village community;

(2)Whether Gramin Bazar/Haat is held on the lands of Gram Samaj or Zila Parishad;

(3)How many wholesalers/commission agents are working.

The services of Shri Tiwari shall stand terminated automatically after the expiry of the above period and his services can be terminated earlier also without assigning any reason, if there is no need or under special circumstances and no compensation will be given to Shri Tiwari in this regard.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 824

Cases Referred (9)