Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2006 (12) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (12) TMI 519 - SC - Indian LawsAppointment on a contractual basis - Applicability of a policy decision of the State - Scheme of regularization of services of the employees - legal right - policy decision adopted in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution of India - irregular and illegal appointments - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the High Court did not issue a writ of mandamus on arriving at a finding that the respondents had a legal right in relation to their claim for regularization, which it was obligated to do. It proceeded to issue the directions only on the basis of the purported policy decision adopted by the State. It failed to notice that a policy decision cannot be adopted by means of a circular letter and, as noticed hereinbefore, even a policy decision adopted in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution of India in that behalf would be void. Any departmental letter or executive instruction cannot prevail over statutory rule and constitutional provisions. Any appointment, thus, made without following the procedure would be ultra vires. This Court, recently in Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workman, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.[2006 (11) TMI 655 - SUPREME COURT], opined that rules of recruitment cannot be relaxed and the Courts/Tribunals cannot direct regularization of temporary appointees de hors the rules, nor can it direct continuation of service of a temporary employee (whether called a casual, ad hoc or daily rate employee) or payment of regular salaries to them. It was faintly suggested that as the respondents are qualified to hold the posts and they had been continuously working for a long time, this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment. On the face of a catena of decisions of this Court, we cannot accept the said submission. An endeavor was made also to submit that the respondents were employed on daily rated basis and their services were transferred to the Corporation. No such case was made out and in any event, as and when the respondents themselves agreed to be appointed on a contractual basis by the appellant-Board, at this juncture they cannot be heard to say that the purported transfer of their services by the State of Punjab to the appellant- Board was illegal. Even no such case has been made out in the special leave petition. Thus, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. They are set aside accordingly. Appeals are allowed.
|