IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Paras Kumar Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.1662/2003) S. B. Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Date of Judgment: March 5th, 2010 PRESENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Chauhan Mr. Sandeep Saxena, for the petitioner. Mr. N.A. Naqvi, Addl. Advocate General, for respondents. BY THE COURT: Aggrieved vide order dated 25-10-2002, whereby the Director Local Self Government had declared that the Screening Committee did not find the Junior Engineers, working in Municipal Boards eligible for regularisation, the petitioner has challenged the said order before this Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had done his diploma in Civil Engineering from Polytechnic College, Ajmer. Initially, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) in Municipal Board, Jahajpur (Bhilwara) on daily wages basis on 28-6-1994. He worked there till 31-5-1995. From 1-6-1995 till 31-8-1995, he worked in Municipal Board Shahpura, District Bhilwara. Subsequently, he was appointed on daily wages basis on 1-11-1995 in Municipal Board Puskar. Thereafter, his services have been extended, from time to time, by respondent No.2, the Municipal Board, Puskar. The post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in Municipal Board, Puskar is a sanctioned post. 3. Considering the fact that a large number of Junior Engineers (Civil) were working in different Municipal Boards, throughout the state, vide Circular dated 25-1-1998, the Director Local Bodies invited applications from those Junior Engineers, who were working on daily wages basis and had completed more than two years of service as on 31-11-1997, and were still working. The applications were invited for the purpose of screening such Junior Engineers and for the regularisation of their services. Since, the petitioner was eligible, his name was sent to the Screening Committee. Subsequently, the Screening Committee called him for interview on 6-3-1998. After a lapse of four and a half years, vide order dated 25- 10-2002, the Screening Committee declared that out of 116 candidates, it found only three candidates eligible for regularisation. Since, the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, he has knocked on the doors of this Court. 4. Like the petitioner, other Junior Engineers had also challenged the same impugned order, through different writ petitions, before this Court. In the case of Dara Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8316/2002, decided on 11-6-2004, this court had quashed and set aside the order dated 25-10-2002 and directed that the petitioners, therein, should be regularised in the service. Since the State was aggrieved by the said order, the State had filed a Special Appeal before the Division Bench. However, the said appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench. 5. Subsequently, another coordinate Bench of this Court has directed for regularisation of the service of the petitioner, in the case of Shiv Narain Pal Vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1299/2003, decided on 18-5-2006. The said order was challenged by filing Special Appeal No.6310/2006, State of Rajasthan Vs. Shiv Narain Pal. But, the Division Bench dismissed the said appeal vide order dated 4-1-2007. The said orders were challenged before the Apex Court by filing a SLP. The Apex Court also dismissed the said Special Leave to Appeal vide order dated 24-9-2007. 6. Subsequently, other coordinate Benches of this Court allowed the writ petitions of Junior Engineers and directed the State to regularise their services. 7. Relying on the various orders of coordinate Benches of this Court, and of the Apex Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner is regularly working on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) since 1995, therefore, he deserves to be regularised. His other colleagues, who have been working on the same post, have been regularised. Therefore, similar benefits should be given to the petitioner. 8. On the other hand, Mr. N.A. Naqvi, the learned Additional Advocate General, has vehemently contended that judicial thinking, with regard to regularisation of those employees who have been appointed on daily wages basis/ adhoc posts has undergone a sea- change in the recent past. In the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held “that regularisation cannot be done, whose initial entry into service was illegal”. According to the Apex Court, “although such person may have been working for a long time, but the years of service would not entitle them to regularisation of their service”. The said judgment has upset the entire judicial thinking, which was prevalent earlier and which was in favour of regularisation of such employees. The judgment of the case of Uma Devi (supra) has been followed consistently by the Apex court in O.L. Vs. Dayanand (2009) 10 SCC 1, and in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. G.V. Chandra Shekhar (2009) 4 SCC 342. According to learned counsel, once Hon'ble the Apex Court has expressed its opinion on a legal issue, the earlier opinion expressed by this Court and confirmed by the Apex Court, stand impliedly overruled. Since the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has spoken in the case Uma Devi (supra), the said decision would be binding on this court as well. Therefore, after the judicial pronouncement in the case of Uma Devi (supra), this Court cannot direct that the petitioner be regularised in the service. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the material available on record, and considered the case law cited at the Bar. 10. Anxious about the cancerous growth of adhoc appointments, aware about the abuse of power by the State machinery in granting backdoor entries to the employees, sensitive to the abuse of law, in the landmark judgment of Uma Devi (supra), the Apex Court surgically cut out the benefit of regularisation to those employees, whose appointment was illegal from the very initial stage. It observed as under:- On a survey of judgments of the Supreme Court on the point, the predominant view is seen to be that appointments made without following the due process of the rules for appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and that the court cannot direct their absorption or regularisation or re-engagement or making them permanent. Those decisions which run counter to the principles settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what has been held herein have been given, will stand denuded of their status as precedents. 11. The Judgment of Uma Devi (supra) did not striking judicial shores as a Tsunami; its sources can be traced to a series of judgment pronounced by the Supreme Court. However, in the case of Uma Devi (supra), the Constitution Bench has emphatically laid down the law for the Courts and Tribunals of this Country to follow. Since, Uma Devi's decision was seen as upsetting the previous judicial thinking, which had emphasised regularisation of employees, the decision of Uma Devi (supra) was bound to cause judicial reaction within the Apex Court. However, despite the judicial rumbling in the case of Dayanand (supra), the Supreme Court again emphasised the decision of Uma Devi (supra). In fact, in the case of Dayanand (supra), the Supreme Court turned on the screws of those Judges and Benches of High Courts and Tribunals, which tried to deviate from the law laid down in Uma Devi's case. The Apex Court opined as under:- There have been several instances of different Benches of the High Courts not following the judgments/ orders of coordinate and even larger Benches. In some cases, the High Courts have gone to the extent of ignoring the law laid down by the Supreme Court without any tangible reason. Likewise, there have been instances in which smaller Benches of the Supreme Court have either ignored or bypassed the ratio of the judgments of the larger Benches including the Constitution Benches. These cases are illustrative of non-adherence to the rule of judicial discipline which is sine qua non for sustaining the system. It is distressing to note that despite several pronouncements on the subject, there is substantial increase in the number of cases involving violation of the basics of judicial discipline. The learned Single Judges and Benches of the High Courts refuse to follow and accept the verdict and law laid down by coordinate and even larger Benches by citing minor difference in the facts as the ground for doing so. Disrespect to the constitutional ethos and breach of discipline have grave impact on the credibility of judicial institution and encourages chance litigation. Predictability and certainty is an important hallmark of judicial jurisprudence developed in this country in last six decades and increase in the frequency of conflicting judgments of the superior judiciary will do incalculable harm to the system inasmuch as the courts at the grass roots will not be able to decide as to which of the judgments lay down the correct law and which one should be followed. In our constitutional set up every citizen is under a duty to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions. Those who have been entrusted with the task of administering the system and operating various constituents of the State and who take oath to act in accordance with the Constitution and uphold the same, have to set an example by exhibiting total commitment to the constitutional ideals. This principle is required to be observed with greater rigour by the members of judicial fraternity who have been bestowed with the power to adjudicate upon important constitutional and legal issues and protect and preserve rights of the individuals and society as a whole. Discipline is sine qua non for effective and efficient functioning of the judicial system. If the courts command others to act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and rule of law, it is not possible to countenance violation of the constitutional principle by those who are required to lay down the law. 12. Recently in the case of G.V. Chandra Shekhar (supra) the Apex Court has reiterated its decision and reasserted its opinion that Uma Devi's decision is the last word on the issue about regularisation of those employees who were appointed on daily wages/ adhoc basis and who have continued in the service for a long time. Thus, the issue about regularisation of such employees is is no longer res integra. The said issue is settled in perpetuity by the erudite judgments in Uma Devi (supra), Dayanand (supra), and G.V. Chandra Shekhar (Supra). 13. Although, it is true that in the case of Dara Singh, this Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 25-10-2002, although it is true that Division Bench of this Court had affirmed the judgment of Dara Singh, although it is true that other coordinate benches had also followed the judgment of Dara Singh, although it is true that the judgment pronounced in the case of Shiv Narain Pal was eventually confirmed by the Supreme Court, but the fact remains that all these decisions, pronounced by Single Bench, Division Bench, and by the Apex Court, are prior to the pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case. Thus, all these decisions, mentioned above, are impliedly overruled by the Constitution Bench in Uma Devi's case. Hence, none of the decisions of coordinate bench, or Division Bench can rescue the petitioner's case. 14. In view of the latest principle laid down by the Apex Court, in Uma Devi's case, Dayanand's case, and G.V. Chandra Shekhar's case, neither the order dated 25-10-2002 can be quashed, nor can this Court direct that the service of the petitioner be regularised. 15. For the reasons, mentioned above, the writ petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. ( R.S. CHAUHAN ) J. arn