1996 JTR(SC) 1390
1996 9 JT 286 ; 1997 1 KLT(SN) 7 1 ; 1997 1 LLJ 1215 ; 1997 1 RSJ 275 ; 1996 7 Scale 76 ; 1996 10 SCC 565 ; 1997 SCC(L&S) 331 ; 1996 Supp5 SCR 533 ; 1997 1 SCT 108 ; 1996 3 SLJ 111 ; 1997 1 SLR 581 ; 1997 KHC 183 ; 1996 7 Supreme 648
1996(7) Supreme 648
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and Faizan Uddin, JJ.
E. Ramakrishnan & Ors. -Petitioners
versus
The State of Kerala & Ors. -Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No.
16725 of 1996
Decided on 4-9-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioners: Mathai M. Paikeday, Sr. Advocate, C.N. Sree Kumar and Shaju Francis, Advocates.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.320
SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The Special Leave Petition pertains to appointments as Field Workers in the Filaria Department of the State Government between 1981 and 1985, where the statutory recruitment process under Article 320 of the Constitution was not complied with for the petitioners but was followed for selected candidates. The High Court, while entertaining writ petitions from selected candidates, directed the Government to fill thirty vacancies from among the candidates recommended by the Public Service Commission, thereby underscoring that appointments must be made strictly in accordance with the provisions of Article 320 read with the service rules. This reinforces that any relaxation or ad-hoc regularization cannot override the constitutional mandate of selection through a public, transparent, and rule-based process.
(B) The core legal principles include the supremacy of statutory recruitment norms under Article 320, non-retroactivity of ad-hoc measures, the requirement of selection through a competent authority, and the non-justiciability of over-age claims without relaxation under rules. Regularization is permissible only within the framework of rules and not in defiance of statutory procedure.
Facts of the case:
Petitioners were appointed as Field Workers between 1981 and 1985. They filed petitions seeking regularization, but the High Court dismissed their batch and allowed writ petitions filed by selected candidates, directing appointment of PSC-selected candidates and issuance of requisition for filling vacancies. Petitioners approached this Court seeking regularization.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the posts were to be filled through PSC recruitment norms and the requisition was sent accordingly. The Government cannot regularize candidates outside statutory processes or relax age requirements unilaterally. The High Court was correct in directing appointments only from among PSC-selected candidates.
Issues:
Whether petitioners can be regularized despite non-compliance with PSC recruitment norms, and whether age relaxation can be granted outside statutory procedure.
Ratio Decidendi:
Appointments must strictly follow Article 320 and statutory recruitment rules; regularization cannot override statutory requirements, and age relaxation must be through proper Governmental authority under rules.
Result:
The special leave petition is dismissed.
(A) The Special Leave Petition pertains to appointments as Field Workers in the Filaria Department of the State Government between 1981 and 1985, where the statutory recruitment process under Article 320 of the Constitution was not complied with for the petitioners but was followed for selected candidates. The High Court, while entertaining writ petitions from selected candidates, directed the Government to fill thirty vacancies from among the candidates recommended by the Public Service Commission, thereby underscoring that appointments must be made strictly in accordance with the provisions of Article 320 read with the service rules. This reinforces that any relaxation or ad-hoc regularization cannot override the constitutional mandate of selection through a public, transparent, and rule-based process.
(B) The core legal principles include the supremacy of statutory recruitment norms under Article 320, non-retroactivity of ad-hoc measures, the requirement of selection through a competent authority, and the non-justiciability of over-age claims without relaxation under rules. Regularization is permissible only within the framework of rules and not in defiance of statutory procedure.
Facts of the case:
Petitioners were appointed as Field Workers between 1981 and 1985. They filed petitions seeking regularization, but the High Court dismissed their batch and allowed writ petitions filed by selected candidates, directing appointment of PSC-selected candidates and issuance of requisition for filling vacancies. Petitioners approached this Court seeking regularization.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the posts were to be filled through PSC recruitment norms and the requisition was sent accordingly. The Government cannot regularize candidates outside statutory processes or relax age requirements unilaterally. The High Court was correct in directing appointments only from among PSC-selected candidates.
Issues:
Whether petitioners can be regularized despite non-compliance with PSC recruitment norms, and whether age relaxation can be granted outside statutory procedure.
Ratio Decidendi:
Appointments must strictly follow Article 320 and statutory recruitment rules; regularization cannot override statutory requirements, and age relaxation must be through proper Governmental authority under rules.
Result:
The special leave petition is dismissed.
ORDER
The petitioners were appointed as Field Workers in the Filaria Department of the State Government between 1981 and 1985. In the first instance, they had filed W.P. No. 250/92 and the High Court directed the Government to consider their representation and dispose it of by judgment dated January 18, 1993. When they came to this Court, this Court directed the Government to consider their cases in the light of the law laid down by this Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh1. Subsequently, since the Government had not taken any steps, the petitioners filed another writ petition. In the meanwhile, the Public Service Commission (PSC) had selected the candidates who were not being appointed. Therefore, the selectees approached the High Court and filed the writ petition. The petitioners also filed the writ petition in the High Court seeking for regularisation. The High Court in the impugned order dated June 24, 1996 in O.P. No. 17422/93 dismissed the batch of writ petitions filed by the petitioners, allowed the writ petitions filed by the selectees and directed the Government to appoint the candidates selected through the PSC. It also directed the Government to send the requisition to the PSC to fill up the posts of 30 vacancies from the list of the selected candidates prepared by the PSC. Thus this special leave petition.
2. It is sought to be contended by Mr. M.M. Paikeday, learned senior counsel for the petitioners that in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Piara Singh s case and in view of the fact that the petitioners have been continuing for more than 14 years, they are required to be regularised. We find no force in the contention. Admittedly, the posts are to be filled up through selection by PSC recruitment norms. Necessarily, therefore, the requisition was sent for selection through the PSC and candidates came to be selected. Under those circumstances, the candidates, who were found eligible and selected and recommended for appointment by the PSC, were required to be appointed. The Court rightly had exercise the power in declining to regularise the services of the petitioners.
3. The learned counsel sought to rely upon an order of the Government where the Government had decided to regularise the services of the ad hoc employees. Obviously, since the decision runs into the teeth of statutory requirement under Article 320 of the Constitution the Government cannot take any decision contrary to the Constitution to regularise the services of the candidates de hors the recruitment rules and the statutory process for selection through the PSC. The High Court, therefore, has rightly given direction to the Government to notify 30 vacancies and odd or whatever may be the vacancies existing to fill up from amongst the candidates selected by the PSC.
4. It is then contended that the petitioners have turned over-aged and, therefore, necessary direction may be given to regularise their service by filling up the unfilled posts. Even that relief also cannot be granted. If the petitioners have turned over-aged on the date of recruitment, it would be for the appropriate Government to relax the age requirement and the petitioners have to stand in the queue and get selection through the PSC. Thus what they get is only the right to appointment to the post.
5. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
SLP dismissed.
*******