TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erative Societies Act, 1983 (for short the 1983 Act ). Pursuant to or in furtherance of the powers conferred thereunder, the State framed rules known as the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988 (for short the 1988 Rules ). The 1983 Act and the 1988 Rules came into force with effect from 13.4.1988. It is not in dispute that a large number of employees, i.e., about 39% of the total strength of the employees of the cooperative societies in the State of Tamil Nadu, were appointed without notifying the vacancies to the Employment Exchanges and without following the other mandatory provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder relating to recruitment. It is not in dispute that a large number of appointees furthermore did not have the requisite educational qualification or other qualification like cooperative training etc. The reservation policy of the State was also not followed by the cooperative societies. The Recruitments were made beyond the permissible cadre strength. With a view to condone the serious lapses on the part of the Cooperative Societies in making such appointments in illegal and arbitrary manner, the Government of the State o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the alternative, are the illegal appointees entitled for statutory protection of regularization and permanent status by virtue of Section 3 of the Permanency Act subject to their completion of 480 man days in a continuous period of 2 years? And (v) whether personnel not covered by clause (iv) are entitled for protection under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? As regard Issue No. 1, it was held that the writ petitions are maintainable. Issue No. 2 was also decided in favour of the writ petitioners holding that the 1981 Act is applicable to the employees of the Cooperative Societies. Issues No. 3, 4 and 5 were taken up for consideration together. The Division Bench by reason of the impugned judgment opined that the provisions of the 1981 Act would not be applicable as regard appointments made in violation of the statute or statutory rules. It was further held that in any event in terms of the 1981 Act and the G.O.Ms. No. 86 dated 12.3.2001 what had been exempted by the Government was the condition relating to the statutory obligation on the part of the Cooperative Societies to notify the Employment Exchange as regard the existing vacancies an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in service and their services shall be terminated forthwith. (vii) that either the provisions of Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 or the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or the settlements entered under Sections 12 or 18 thereof, shall have no application to the staff of the cooperative societies appointed without adequate qualifications or beyond the cadre strength for the period from 9.7.1980 to 11.3.2001. This is equally applicable to the staff appointed to the cooperative societies, otherwise than through employment exchange, for the period from 12.3.2001 onwards. Mr. S. Balakrishanan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant relying on or on the basis of the decision of this Court in Jacob M. Puthuparambil and Others Vs. Kerala Water Authority and Others [(1991) 1 SCC 28] would submit that having regard to the fact that the appellants had been working in the cooperative societies for a long time, the High Court committed a serious error in not holding that they had acquired a right for regularization. In any event, Mr. Balakrishnan would contend that each employee was individ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the Rules made thereunder. Section 182 of the 1983 Act reads as under: 182. Power of Government to give directions.-(1) The Government may, in the public interest, by order, direct the Registrar to make an inquiry or to take appropriate proceedings under this Act, in any case specified in the order, and the Registrar shall report to the Government the result of the inquiry made or the proceedings taken by him within a period of six months from the date of such order or such further period as the Government may permit. (2) In any case, in which a direction has been given under sub-section (1), the Government may, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, call for and examine the record of the proceedings of the Registrar and pass such orders in the case as they may think fit: Provided that before passing any order under this sub-section the person likely to be affected by such order shall be given an opportunity of making his representation. A bare perusal of the aforementioned provision would clearly go to show that the impugned Government Order could not have been issued by the State in terms thereof as the same can be taken r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also the Rules and bye laws framed thereunder. The cooperative societies are obligated to follow the cooperative principles as laid down in the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The State had framed rules in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Section 180 of the 1983 Act in the year 1988. Rule 149 of the 1988 Rules provides for a complete code as regard the mode and manner in which appointments were required to be made and the process of appointments is required to be carried out. In terms of the said Rule, requirements to possess educational qualification and other qualifications had been laid down. One of the essential qualifications laid down for holding certain posts is 'undergoing cooperative training and previous experience'. At this juncture, we may notice some of the provisions contained in Rule 149 of the 1988 Rules. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 149 read as under: (a) No appointment by direct recruitment to any post shall be made except by calling for from the societies applications from their employees who possess the qualifications for the post and unless the Government have accorded special sanction for recruitment by a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... andatory in nature. Regularisation, in our considered opinion, is not and cannot be the mode of recruitment by any State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India or any body or authority governed by a Statutory Act or the Rules framed thereunder. It is also now well-settled that an appointment made in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Statute and in particular ignoring the minimum educational qualification and other essential qualification would be wholly illegal. Such illegality cannot be cured by taking recourse to regularisation. (See State of H.P. Vs. Suresh Kumar Verma and Another, (1996) 7 SCC 562). It is equally well-settled that those who come by backdoor should go through that door. (See State of U.P. and Others Vs. U.P. State Law Officers Association Others, (1994) 2 SCC 204) Regularisation furthermore cannot give permanence to an employee whose services are ad-hoc in nature. The question came up for consideration before this Court as far back in 1967 in State of Mysore Anr. Vs. S.V. Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 128] wherein this Court observed Before we proceed to consider the construction placed by the High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In State of M.P. and Another Vs. Dharam Bir [(1998) 6 SCC 165], it was observed that the government services are essentially a matter of status rather a contract and in that context it was observed: 26. Whether a person holds a particular post in a substantive capacity or is only temporary or ad hoc is a question which directly relates to his status. It all depends upon the terms of appointment. It is not open to any government employee to claim automatic alteration of status unless that result is specifically envisaged by some provision in the statutory rules. Unless, therefore, there is a provision in the statutory rules for alteration of status in a particular situation, it is not open to any government employee to claim a status different than that which was conferred upon him at the initial or any subsequent stage of service. 27. Applying these principles to the instant case, since the respondent, admittedly, was appointed in an ad hoc capacity, he would continue to hold the post in question in that capacity It is trite that appointments cannot be made on political considerations and in violation of the government directions for reduction of est ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C (L S) 607 : (1993) 24 ATC 259) it was held that though the power of relaxation stated in the rule was in regard to any of the provisions of the rules , this did not permit relaxation of the rule of direct recruitment without consulting the Commission and the entire ad hoc service of a direct recruit could not be treated as regular service. Similarly, in M. A. Haque (Dr.) v. Union of India ((1993) 2 SCC 213 : 1993 SCC (L S) 412 : (1993) 24 ATC117) it was held that for direct recruitment, the rules relating to recruitment through the Public Service Commission could not be relaxed. In J K Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narinder Mohan ((1994) 2 SCC 630 : 1994 SCC (L S) 723 : (1994) 27 ATC 56) it was held that the provisions of the J K Medical Recruitment Rules could not be relaxed for direct recruitment. The backdoor direct recruitments, could not be permitted. (See also Arundhati Ajit Pargaonkar (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra (1994 Supp (3) SCC 380 : 1995 SCC (L S) 31 : (1994) 28 ATC 415).) In Surinder Singh Jamwal (Dr.) v. State of J K ((1996) 9 SCC 619 : 1996 SCC (L S) 1296) this Court directed the direct recruits to go before the Public Service Commission. In Dr. Chan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order of the High Court is therefore, set side. A Division Bench of this Court in Surendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Vikas Adhikari and Another [(2003) 5 SCC 12] upon noticing the decision of this Court in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union (supra) observed: A good deal of illegal employment market has developed, resulting in a new source of corruption and frustration of those who are waiting at the Employment Exchanges for years. Not all those who gain such back-door entry in the employment are in need of the particular jobs. Though already employed elsewhere, they join the jobs for better and secured prospects. That is why most of the cases which come to the courts are of employment in government departments, public undertakings or agencies. Ultimately it is the people who bear the heavy burden of the surplus labour. The other equally injurious effect of indiscriminate regularization has been that many of the agencies have stopped undertaking casual or temporary works though they are urgent and essential for fear that if those who are employed on such works are required to be continued for 240 or more days have to be absorbed as regular employees al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jacob M. Puthuparambil (supra) whereupon Mr. Balakrishnan placed strong reliance, a 3-Judge Bench of this Court noticed that by reason of the statutory rules, regularization was sought to be made of such employees who were appointed under posts required to be filled if (i) it is necessary in public interest and (ii) where an emergency has arisen to fill any particular post which has fallen vacant, immediately. Therein it was further noticed that Clause (e) of Rule 9 provided for regularization of service of any person appointed under clause (i) of sub-rule (a) if he had completed continuous service of two years on December 22, 1973, notwithstanding anything contained in the rules. Jacob M. Puthuparambil (supra) has been distinguished by this Court in several decisions including 3-Judge Bench of this Court in Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. Vs. Pushpa Srivastava (Smt.) [(1992) 4 SCC 33] and Ashwani Kumar (supra). We do not intend to say any more on the subject as even constitutionality of such a provision is pending for consideration before the Constitution Bench of this Court. (See Secretary, State of Karnataka Ors. Vs. Umadevi and Ors. 2003 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 88], this Court rejected a similar plea for regularization of services stating : We repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the appellants on what basis or foundation in law the appellants made their claim for regularization and under what rules their recruitment was made so as to govern their service conditions. They were not in a position to answer except saying that the appellants have been working for quite some time in various schools started pursuant to resolutions passed by zilla parishads in view of the government orders and that their cases need to be considered sympathetically. It is clear from the order of the learned single judge and looking to the very directions given a very sympathetic view was taken. We do not find it either just or proper to show any further sympathy in the given facts and circumstances of the case. While being sympathetic to the persons who come before the court the courts cannot at the same time be unsympathetic to the large number of eligible persons waiting for a long time in a long queue seeking employment . For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in these appeals which are dismissed accordingly. No costs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
