1996 JTR(SC) 1905
1997 1 CLR 373 ; 1996 Supp JT 220 ; 1997 2 LLJ 795 ; 1997 4 LLN 557 ; 1996 8 Scale 721 ; 1997 1 SCC 245 ; 1997 SCC(L&S) 717 ; 1996 SCR 734 ; 1997 1 SCT 475 ; 1996 6 SLR 636 ; 1997 KHC 3559 ; 1996 8 Supreme 698
1996(8) Supreme 698
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Union of India & Co. -Appellants
versus
Mahender Singh & Co. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 15086 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15040 of 1996)
Decided on 18-11-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : T.R. Adhyarujuna, Solicitor General, T.C. Sharma, P. Parmeswaran, Advocates.
For the Respondents : B.T. Kaul and Rajiv Talwar, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Direction can be made for regularisation of services only in accordance with rules.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.16, Art.14
SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The referred Service Law, alongside Constitution of India Article 16 and Article 14, governs the present dispute regarding regularisation of services and protection against discrimination on grounds of age and education. These provisions ensure equality of opportunity and fair treatment in employment matters, requiring that any relaxation in educational qualifications and age criteria be applied consistently and non-arbitrarily, while respecting settled precedents that inform the scope and limits of such exercise.
(B) Key legal principles include non-discrimination, equality of opportunity, the necessity of adhering to established case law, and the requirement that relaxation in recruitment norms be applied in accordance with rules and on a non-hostile basis, without extending benefits beyond the scope of statutory provisions.
Facts of the case:
The respondents were engaged as drivers in the Intelligence Bureau from 24 April 1983 to October 1986 and filed an application for regularisation of their services. The Central Administrative Tribunal examined their experience, noted that they had more than 7 years of service, and considered relaxation of age and educational qualifications in light of prior case law.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal erred in directing regularisation with effect from the dates of appointment, as this contradicts the settled legal position. It was also incorrect to extend relaxation to the respondents merely because other similar cases had received such benefits, given the specific cadre rules governing the Intelligence Bureau.
Issues:
Whether the respondents are entitled to regularisation of services with retrospective effect from their appointment dates, and whether they are entitled to relaxation in educational qualifications on par with other groups similarly situated under the relevant service rules.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court held that regularisation must be in accordance with service rules and the law laid down in precedents, and that any relaxation must be governed by specific provisions such as the one-time exception for Security Assistants (Motor Transport), which does not apply to the respondents, thereby rejecting retrospective effect and unfavourable comparisons.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the matter is directed to be disposed of in line with the legal principles and rules without granting retrospective regularisation.
(A) The referred Service Law, alongside Constitution of India Article 16 and Article 14, governs the present dispute regarding regularisation of services and protection against discrimination on grounds of age and education. These provisions ensure equality of opportunity and fair treatment in employment matters, requiring that any relaxation in educational qualifications and age criteria be applied consistently and non-arbitrarily, while respecting settled precedents that inform the scope and limits of such exercise.
(B) Key legal principles include non-discrimination, equality of opportunity, the necessity of adhering to established case law, and the requirement that relaxation in recruitment norms be applied in accordance with rules and on a non-hostile basis, without extending benefits beyond the scope of statutory provisions.
Facts of the case:
The respondents were engaged as drivers in the Intelligence Bureau from 24 April 1983 to October 1986 and filed an application for regularisation of their services. The Central Administrative Tribunal examined their experience, noted that they had more than 7 years of service, and considered relaxation of age and educational qualifications in light of prior case law.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal erred in directing regularisation with effect from the dates of appointment, as this contradicts the settled legal position. It was also incorrect to extend relaxation to the respondents merely because other similar cases had received such benefits, given the specific cadre rules governing the Intelligence Bureau.
Issues:
Whether the respondents are entitled to regularisation of services with retrospective effect from their appointment dates, and whether they are entitled to relaxation in educational qualifications on par with other groups similarly situated under the relevant service rules.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court held that regularisation must be in accordance with service rules and the law laid down in precedents, and that any relaxation must be governed by specific provisions such as the one-time exception for Security Assistants (Motor Transport), which does not apply to the respondents, thereby rejecting retrospective effect and unfavourable comparisons.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the matter is directed to be disposed of in line with the legal principles and rules without granting retrospective regularisation.
ORDER
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
2. This appeal by special leave arises against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi made on February 8, 1996 in OA No.1105/95.
3. The admitted position is that the respondents came to be engaged as drivers in Intelligence Bureau, Headquarters, New Delhi from April 24, 1986 to October 5, 1983. They had filed the O.A. for regularisation of their services. The Tribunal in the impugned order has directed to regularise their serviced as stated hereunder :
"In the present case, the experience of the applicants is more than 7 years. They are, therefore, entitled in view of the ratio of the above cited case to be considered for regularisation in relaxation of their age and educational qualifications. We accordingly, dispose of this application with the direction to the respondents to consider the applicants for regularisation on the availability of vacancies along with others after granting them necessary educational and age relaxation and to continue them in their present jobs, subject to work being available, in preference to any other worker who may have lesser experience than them of working with the respondents.
4. In view of the settled legal position by this Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh1 and plethora of precedents thereafter, the Tribunal obviously is in error in directing regularisation of their services with effect from the respective dates of their appointments. Instead, the appellants are directed to regularise their services in accordance with the rules in the light of the law laid down therein.
5. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the appellants have relaxed the educational qualifications in respect of 15 persons named in the rejoinder and, therefore, the respondents are also entitled to the same benefit. The learned Solicitor General has placed before us the rules made by the Government on February 4, 1988; Note (2) was appended to Rule 2(iii) which reads as under :
"All the persons working as Security Assistant (Motor Transport) immediately before coming into force of the Intelligence Bureau (Motor Transport Cadre) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 1988 shall be promoted en bloc as Junior Intelligence Officer Grade-II (Motor Transport) irrespective of the number of years of service rendered by them as Security Assistant (Motor Transport) against the upgraded post of Security Assistant (Motor Transport) as Junior Intelligence Officer, Grade-II (Motor Transport) as one time exception."
It is stated that the previous cadre to which the above persons came to be appointed was abolished. As a consequence, all those persons working as Security Assistants (Motor Transport) were en bloc regularised relaxing their educational qualifications which is only 6th standard and, therefore, it has no application to the case of the respondents. In view of the above position, we do not find any hostile discrimination meted out to the respondents, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents.
6. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order in the O.A. stands disposed of as directed earlier. No costs.
Appeal allowed accordingly.
********