Case: National Fertilizers Ltd.  Vs. Somvir Singh

regular and proper recruitments and is bound not to encourage or shut its eyes to the persistent transgression of the rules of regular recruitment. The direction to make permanent -- the distinction between regularization and making permanent, was not emphasized here - can only encourage the State the model employer, to flout its own rules and would confer undue benefits on a few at the cost of many waiting to compete. With respect, the direction made in paragraph 50 of Piara Singh (supra) are to some extent inconsistent with the conclusion in paragraph 45 therein. With great respect, it appears to us that the last of the directions clearly runs counter to the constitutional scheme of employment recognized in the earlier part of the decision. Really, it cannot be said that this decision had laid down the law that all ad hoc, temporary or casual employees engaged without following the regular recruitment procedure should be made permanent. It was furthermore opined: 26. It is not necessary to notice all the decisions of this Court on this aspect. By and large what emerges is that regular recruitment should be insisted upon, only in a contingency and ad hoc appointment can be made in a permanent vacancy, but the same should soon be followed by a regular recruitment and that appointments to non-available posts should not be taken note of for regularization. The cases directing regularization have mainly proceeded on the basis that having permitted the employee to work for some period, he should be absorbed, without really laying down any law to that effect, after discussing the constitutional scheme for public employment. 21. Taking note of some recent decisions of this Court, it was held that the State does not enjoy a power to make appointments in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution of India. It further quoted with approval a decision of this Court in Union Public Service Commission vs. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela & Others [2006 (2) SCALE 115 ] in the following terms: ...The appointment to any post under the State can only be made after a proper advertisement has been made inviting applications from eligible candidates and holding of selection by a body of experts or a specially constituted committee whose members are fair and impartial, through a written examination or interview or some other rational criteria for judging the inter se merit of candidates who have applied in response to the advertisement made. A regular appointment to a post under the State or Union cannot be made without issuing advertisement in the prescribed manner which may in some cases include inviting applications from the employment exchange where eligible candidates get their names registered. Any regular appointment made on a post under the State or Union without issuing advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates and without holding a proper selection where all eligible candidates get a fair chance to compete would violate the guarantee enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution... It was clearly held: These binding decisions are clear imperatives that adherence to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is a must in the process of public employment. 22. The contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents that the appointments were irregular and not illegal, cannot be accepted for more than one reason. They were appointed only on the basis of their applications. The Recruitment Rules were not followed. Even the Selection Committee had not been properly constituted. In view of the ban in employment, no recruitment was permissible in law. The reservation policy adopted by the Appellant had not been maintained. Even cases of minorities had not been given due consideration. 23. The Constitution Bench thought of directing regularisation of the services only of those employee whose appointments were irregular as explained in State of Mysore vs. S.V. Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 799], Nanjundappa vs T. Thimmiah & Anr [(1972) 2 SCR 799] and B.N. Nagarajan & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. [(1979) 3 SCR 937] wherein this Court observed: In B.N. Nagarajan & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. [(1979) 3 SCR 937] , this court clearly held that the words regular or regularization do not connote permanence and cannot be construed so as to convey an idea of the nature of tenure of appointments. They are terms calculated to condone any procedural irregularities and are meant to cure only such defects as are attributable to methodology followed in making the appointments.. 24. Judged by the standards laid down by this Court in the aforementioned decisions, the appointments of the Respondents are illegal. They do not, thus, have any legal right to continue in service. 25. It is true that the Respondents had been working for a long time. It may also be true that they had not been paid wages on a regular scale of pay. But, they did not hold any post. They were, therefore, not entitled to be paid salary on a regular scale or pay. Furthermore, only because the Respondents have worked for some time, the same by itself would not be a ground for directing regularisation of their services in view of the decision of this Court in Uma Devi (supra). 26. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Constitution Bench, in our opinion, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained. They are set aside accordingly. 27. Shri Somvir Singh, Hansraj Benewal, Malkiat Singh, Ranjit Singh are said to be working. They may be relieved of their posts. We may, however, observe that their cases may be considered for future appointment and age bar, if any, in view of the policy decision of the Appellant itself may be relaxed to the extent they had worked. The salary or any remuneration paid to them, however, may not be recovered. This order however, is being passed in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India keeping in view the principles embodied in Section 70 of the Contract Act.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]18. Regularisation, furthermore, is not a mode of appointment. If appointment is made without following the Rules, the same being a nullity the question of confirmation of an employee upon the expiry of the purported period of probation would not arise. The Constitution Bench in Umadevi (supra) made a detailed survey of the case laws operating in the field19. The referral order to the Constitution Bench was made by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court stating:1. Apart from the conflicting opinions between the three Judges Bench decisions in Ashwani Kumar and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 1997 (2) SCC 1,  State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Piara Singh and Ors. Reported in 1992 (4) SCC 118 and Dharwad Dist. P.W.D. LiterateDaily Wage Employees Association and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. Reported in 1990 (2) SCC 396,  on the one hand and State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Suresh Kumar Verma and Anr., reported in AIR 1996 SC 1565 , State of Punjab vs. Surinder Kumar and Ors. Reported in AIR 1992 SC 1593 , and B.N. Nagarajan and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors., reported in 1979 (4) SCC 507 on the other, which has been brought out in one of the judgments under appeal of Karnataka High Court in State of Karnataka vs. H. Ganesh Rao, decided on 1.6.2000, reported in 2001 (4) Karnataka Law Journal 466, learned Additional Solicitor General urged that the scheme for regularization is repugnant to Articles 16(4), 309, 320 and 335 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, these cases are required to be heard by a Bench of Five learned Judges (constitution Bench)2. On the other hand, Mr. M.C. Bhandare, learned senior counsel, appearing for the employees urged that such a scheme for regularization is consistent with the provision of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution3. Mr. V. Lakshmi Narayan, learned counsel, appearing in CC Nos. 109-498 of 2003, has filed the G.O. dated 19.7.2002, and submitted that orders have already been implemented4. After having found that there is conflict of opinion between three Judges Bench decisions of this Court, we are of the view that these cases are required to be heard by a Bench of five learned Judges5. Let these matters be placed before Honble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders20. The Constitution Bench opined that any appointment made in violation of the Recruitment Rules as also in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution would be nullity. The contention raised on behalf of the employees that those temporary or ad hoc employees who had continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must consider their cases for regularisation was answered, thus:With respect, why should the State be allowed to depart from the normal rule and indulge in temporary employment in permanent posts? This Court, in our view, is bound to insist on the State making regular and proper recruitments and is bound not to encourage or shut its eyes to the persistent transgression of the rules of regular recruitment. The direction to make permanent -- the distinction between regularization and making permanent, was not emphasized here - can only encourage the State the model employer, to flout its own rules and would confer undue benefits on a few at the cost of many waiting to compete. With respect, the direction made in paragraph 50 of Piara Singh (supra) are to some extent inconsistent with the conclusion in paragraph 45 therein. With great respect, it appears to us that the last of the directions clearly runs counter to the constitutional scheme of employment recognized in the earlier part of the decision. Really, it cannot be said that this decision had laid down the law that all ad hoc, temporary or casual employees engaged without following the regular recruitment procedure should be made permanent26. It is not necessary to notice all the decisions of this Court on this aspect. By and large what emerges is that regular recruitment should be insisted upon, only in a contingency and ad hoc appointment can be made in a permanent vacancy, but the same should soon be followed by a regular recruitment and that appointments to non-available posts should not be taken note of for regularization. The cases directing regularization have mainly proceeded on the basis that having permitted the employee to work for some period, he should be absorbed, without really laying down any law to that effect, after discussing the constitutional scheme for public employment21. Taking note of some recent decisions of this Court, it was held that the State does not enjoy a power to make appointments in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution of India. It further quoted with approval a decision of this Court in Union Public Service Commission vs. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela & Others [2006 (2) SCALE 115 ] in the following terms:...The appointment to any post under the State can only be made after a proper advertisement has been made inviting applications from eligible candidates and holding of selection by a body of experts or a specially constituted committee whose members are fair and impartial, through a written examination or interview or some other rational criteria for judging the inter se merit of candidates who have applied in response to the advertisement made. A regular appointment to a post under the State or Union cannot be made without issuing advertisement in the prescribed manner which may in some cases include inviting applications from the employment exchange where eligible candidates get their names registered. Any regular appointment made on a post under the State or Union without issuing advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates and without holding a proper selection where all eligible candidates get a fair chance to compete would violate the guarantee enshrined under Article 16 of the ConstitutionThese binding decisions are clear imperatives that adherence to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is a must in the process of public employment22. The contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents that the appointments were irregular and not illegal, cannot be accepted for more than one reason. They were appointed only on the basis of their applications. The Recruitment Rules were not followed. Even the Selection Committee had not been properly constituted. In view of the ban in employment, no recruitment was permissible in law. The reservation policy adopted by the Appellant had not been maintained. Even cases of minorities had not been given due consideration23. The Constitution Bench thought of directing regularisation of the services only of those employee whose appointments were irregular as explained in State of Mysore vs. S.V. Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 799], Nanjundappa vs T. Thimmiah & Anr [(1972) 2 SCR 799] and B.N. Nagarajan & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. [(1979) 3 SCR 937] wherein this Court observed:In B.N. Nagarajan & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. [(1979) 3 SCR 937] , this court clearly held that the words regular or regularization do not connote permanence and cannot be construed so as to convey an idea of the nature of tenure of appointments. They are terms calculated to condone any procedural irregularities and are meant to cure only such defects as are attributable to methodology followed in making the appointments24. Judged by the standards laid down by this Court in the aforementioned decisions, the appointments of the Respondents are illegal. They do not, thus, have any legal right to continue in service25. It is true that the Respondents had been working for a long time. It may also be true that they had not been paid wages on a regular scale of pay. But, they did not hold any post. They were, therefore, not entitled to be paid salary on a regular scale or pay. Furthermore, only because the Respondents have worked for some time, the same by itself would not be a ground for directing regularisation of their services in view of the decision of this Court in Uma Devi (supra)In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Constitution Bench, in our opinion, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained. They are set aside accordinglyShri Somvir Singh, Hansraj Benewal, Malkiat Singh, Ranjit Singh are said to be working. They may be relieved of their posts. We may, however, observe that their cases may be considered for future appointment and age bar, if any, in view of the policy decision of the Appellant itself may be relaxed to the extent they had worked. The salary or any remuneration paid to them, however, may not be recovered. This order however, is being passed in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India keeping in view the principles embodied in Section 70 of the Contract Act