Skip to content
Home » Constitution–Art.16,14,141 | State of Karnataka and Others v. G.V.Chandrashekar, C.A. No. 1187 of 2009 SC

Constitution–Art.16,14,141 | State of Karnataka and Others v. G.V.Chandrashekar, C.A. No. 1187 of 2009 SC

  • Uncategorized

Constitution–Art.16,14,141 | (2009) 4 SCC 342

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Justice S.B.Sinha and Justice Cyriac Joseph

2009-02-25T00:00:00

C.A. No. 1187 of 2009

J U D G M E N T

quot;-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">





S.B. Sinha, J.


1. Leave granted.


2. These appeals involving similar questions of law and facts were taken up
for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2 The short question which arises for consideration herein is as to whether
the respondents herein having been appointed on an ad-hoc basis could be treated
to have been regularized in their services.

We may notice individual fact of the matters before us:- Civil Appeal arising
out of SLP(C) No.24124/2004 Respondent herein was appointed as a Typist on
5.9.1985 and worked for more than ten years without break in service. Under
these circumstances, he sought direction from appellants herein to regularize
his services with all consequential benefits. His claim was denied by the
appellants. Aggrieved by the same, respondent approached the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal which by its order dated 22.9.2003 directed that the
question of regularization of the services of the respondent be examined by the
appellants with reference to records and decision thereon be taken within 90
days thereafter. Challenging the order of the tribunal, appellant- State
approached the High Court which by its order dated 9.8.2004 dismissed the same
and directed the appellant to consider the claim of the respondent in terms of
the judgment in Premakala Shetty vs. Common Cadre Committee.

3 Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No.24985-25042/2006 Respondents were
working in the Forest Department for over ten years as gate watchman, driver,
wireless operator and computer operator and sought for regularization of their
services from the authorities of the department with all consequential benefits.
Their claim was denied by the appellants. Aggrieved by the same, respondents
approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal which by its order dated
24.9.2003 directed that the question of regularization of the services of the
respondent be examined by the appellants with reference to records and decision
thereof may be taken within 90 days. Challenging the order of the Tribunal
appellant State approached the High Court which dismissed the writ petition by
reason of an order dated 21.7.04 and directed the appellant to consider the
claim of the respondents following the judgment in Premakala Shetty vs. Common
Cadre Committee.

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.12223/2006 4 Respondents were appointed
as sweepers on 1.4.1980 and 29.4.1978 respectively and sought for regularization
of their services with all consequential benefits as they had put in more than
ten years of service.

Their claim was denied by the appellants. Aggrieved by the same, respondents
approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal which by its order dated
10.1.2003 directed that regularization of the respondents be made from the day
they had completed 10 years of continuous service, as against the posts on which
they had been irregularly recruited, with all consequential benefits.
Challenging the order of the Tribunal, appellant State approached the High
Court, by filing a writ petition which dismissed the writ petition by reason of
an order dated 5.1.2004 directing it to consider the claim of the respondents
following the judgment in State of Karnataka, By Secretary Forest Department,
Bagalore and Ors. vs. T.B. Manjunath and Ors. and Premakala Shetty vs. Common
Cadre Committee.

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos.15115-15119/2004 Respondents herein
have been working as Forest Watchers for more than 10 years, having been
inducted as daily wagers. As their applications 5 for regularization was
rejected by the appellants, they approached the Karnataka Administrative
Tribunal which by its order dated 19.12.2002 directed that in the event of
respondents filing fresh application with supportive evidence, their claim for
regularization may be taken up and appropriate orders thereon may be passed
within three months from the date of representation. Challenging the order of
the Tribunal, appellant State approached the High Court by filing a writ
petition which rejected the writ petition by reason of an order dated 28.1.04
and directing it to consider the claim of the respondents following the judgment
in State of Karnataka, By Secretary Forest Department, Bangalore and Ors. vs.
T.B. Manjunath and Ors. and Premakala Shetty vs. Common Cadre Committee.

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos.16273-16276/2004 Respondents have
been working as mazdoors and sought for regularization of their services having
completed more than 10 years of service. As their applications for
regularization was denied by the appellants, they approached the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal which by its order dated 24.7.2003 directed that the
claim of the respondents be 6 examined and decided within 90 days from the date
of receipt of the order and in the event of having completed 10 years of
service, on any subsequent date, on any day prior to or after the date of filing
of the application, the appellants shall consider the claim for regularization.
Challenging the order of the Tribunal, appellant State approached the High
Court, by way of writ which was rejected by reason of order dated 28.1.2004 and
directing it to consider the claim of the respondents following the judgment in
State of Karnataka, By Secretary Forest Department, Bangalore and Ors. vs. T.B.

Manjunath and Ors. and Premakala Shetty vs. Common Cadre Committee.

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos.17865-17873/2004 Respondents were
appointed as forest watcher, literate Assistant and Board Driver and sought for
regularization of their services with all consequential benefits. As their
applications for regularization was denied by the appellants, they approached
the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal which ordered on 11.11.2002 that the
appellants shall consider the claim of the respondents but subject to
verification of the claim of their having 7 completed ten years of continuous
service be examined and decided within 90 days from the date of receipt of the
order. Challenging the order of the Tribunal, appellant State approached the
High Court by way of a writ petition which was rejected by reason of order dated
12.1.2004 and directing it to consider the claim of the respondents in terms of
judgment in State of Karnataka, By Secretary Forest Department, Bangalore and
Ors. vs.

T.B. Manjunath and Ors. and Premakala Shetty vs. Common Cadre Committee and
directed to comply with the order within two months.

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 16527-16534/2004 Respondents herein
were appointed as first division assistant, stenographer, watchman and have
approached the KAT for their regularization of their services. The Tribunal by
way of order dated 23.9.03 allowed the application of the respondents herein and
directed compliance within 90 days from the date of receipt of the order.
Challenging the order of the Tribunal, appellant State approached the High Court
by way of a writ 8 petition which was rejected by reason of order dated
17.3.2004 and directing it to consider the claim of the respondents.

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.11893/2006 Respondent's husband was
appointed a Driver on 30.5.1980 and he died on 15.8.92. Respondent sought for
regularization of his services with all consequential benefits. The Tribunal on
10.7.2003 relying upon the decision on Bidu vs. State of Karnataka (ILR 2000 KAR
2405) directed to pass appropriate orders within 90 days, including
consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. Challenging the order of
the Tribunal the appellants came up with a writ petition before the High Court
which was dismissed by reason of order dated 9.11.2004, placing reliance on
State of Karnataka vs. Karnataka Casual and Daily rated workers' Union (ILR 2001
KAR 1178), Himachal Pradesh vs. Suresh Kumar [(AIR 1986 SC 1565] and Randhir
Singh, D.S. Nakara, Dharwad etc.

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.11894/2006 Respondents herein were
appointed as literate assistant, hand-pump helper, typist and sought for
regularization of services with all 9 consequential benefits from their
authorities. The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the State,
which challenged the Tribunal's order dated 09.06.2003 and directed the
appellant to consider the claim of the respondents.


3. Indisputably, a Constitution Bench of this Court in Secretary. State of
Karnataka & ors. vs. Umadevi (3) & ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 1] having regard
to the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
opined that any appointment made in contravention of any recruitment rules
framed in terms of the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of
India would be wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, holding:

"26. 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 regularisation and making permanent, was not emphasised
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 para 50 (of SCC) of Piara Singh [(1992) 4
SCC 118] is to some extent inconsistent with the conclusion in para 45 (of 10
SCC) therein. With great respect, it appears to us that the last of the
directions clearly runs counter to the constitutional scheme of employment
recognised in the earlier part of the decision.

Really, it cannot be said that this decision has laid down the law that all
ad hoc, temporary or casual employees engaged without following the regular
recruitment procedure should be made permanent.


33. 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 can an ad hoc appointment 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
regularisation. The cases directing regularisation 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.


43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public
employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is
the core of our Constitution, a court would certainly be disabled from passing
an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of
the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of
the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment,
this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the
appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition
among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee.
If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end
of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or
casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly,
a temporary employee 11 could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of
his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a
temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the
term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular
service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the
original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as
envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular
recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment
has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their
appointment, do not acquire any right. The High Courts acting under Article 226
of the Constitution, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption,
regularisation, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made
regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because an employee
had continued under cover of an order of the court, which we have described as
"litigious employment" in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be
entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. In fact,
in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim
directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found
entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a
manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim
direction to continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for
selection or impose on the State the burden of paying an employee who is really
not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere
unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its
instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing
of the constitutional and statutory mandates."

12 While saying so, however, the Constitution Bench with a view to give some
relief to those employees in respect of whom the process of regularization had
been completed and by way of one time measure, held as under :- "53. One aspect
needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not
illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and
B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in
duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have
continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders
of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of
such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the
principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light
of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and
their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure,
the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or
more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of
tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to
fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where
temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be
set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that
regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened
based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the
constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly
appointed as per the constitutional scheme."

13

4. The question which arises for consideration herein is as to whether having
regard to the aforementioned law as laid down by the Constitution Bench the
respondents herein are entitled to any relief or not.

Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
and Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents, on the other hand, relied upon two orders passed by this Court; one
dated 17.11.2006 in Civil Appeal No. 3956 of 2001 – Madanbi vs. Director of
Horticulture & Ors., wherein all appeals have been allowed following Umadevi
(supra), whereas in order dated 19.2.2007 in Civil Appeal No.838 of 2007 – State
of Karnataka & Anr. vs. S.K. Halappa & Ors. another Division Bench of
this Court directed as under::- "We have perused the order passed by the High
Court dated 29.3.2004 whereby the Division Bench has directed that Government
will consider each case independently in accordance with law, within ten weeks
from today for regularization.

Suffice it to say that Respondent No.1 (herein) was appointed on a daily
wages and he continued for quite some time and thereafter he filed writ petition
before the High Court for regularization on permanent basis with all
consequential benefits.

The High Court directed the State to consider the case of Respondent No.1 in
accordance with law 14 and within 10 weeks. Aggrieved against this order, the
State is in appeal by way of special leave petition. We have heard learned
counsel for the parties and perused the record. In our view, the point involved
in this appeal has been decided by this Court in the case of Secretary, State of
Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi(3) and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1. The
regularization has now been held to be bad in law. But certain observations have
been made in the aforesaid judgment. Therefore, in the fitness of things, we set
aside the order of the High Court and remit the matter back to the High Court
for fresh consideration in light of the law laid down in Uma Devi's case
(supra)"


5. Our attention has also been drawn to the order dated 9.6.2003 passed by
the learned single judge of the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore in Writ
Petition Nos. 10332-10342 of 2003 (S-Reg) by Mr. Anatha Murthy, which reads as
under:- "1. The respondents are directed to consider the cases of the
petitioners who have completed ten years of continuous service for
regularization subject to the petitioners fulfilling the eligibility criteria
for the posts to which they seek regularization.


2. In the event of any of the petitioners being found not to have the
qualification for regularization to the post in which they are 15 presently
working, they may be considered for regularization to the next lower post for
which they have qualification or they should be given a reasonable time for
acquiring the qualification.

The respondents may not dispense their services merely on the ground that
they do not have necessary qualification.


3. The respondents may also consider the request of the petitioners for
extension of regular pay scales applicable to regular employees discharging the
same functions, wherever such pay scales are not extended already.


4. The respondents are given three months time from today to comply with the
direction given above."


6. Interpretation of Para 53 in Umadevi's case (supra) had come up for
consideration before this Court in a large number of decisions.

In Mineral Exploration Corpn. Employees' Union vs. Mineral Exploration Corpn.
Ltd. [(2006) 6 SCC 310] wherein this Court, while following Umadevi (3) (supra),
invoked para 53 of the said decision to opine:

"39. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to decide the claim of the workmen of
the Union strictly in 16 accordance with and in compliance with all the
directions given in the judgment by the Constitution Bench in Secy., State of
Karnataka v.

Umadevi (3) (supra) and in particular, paras 53 and 12 relied on by the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Union. The Tribunal is directed to
dispose of the matter afresh within 9 months from the date of receipt of this
judgment without being influenced by any of the observations made by us in this
judgment. Both the parties are at liberty to submit and furnish the details in
regard to the names of the workmen, nature of the work, pay scales and the wages
drawn by them from time to time and the transfers of the workmen made from time
to time, from place to place and other necessary and requisite details. The
above details shall be submitted within two months from the date of the receipt
of this judgment before the Tribunal."

However, in National Fertilizers Ltd. & ors. vs. Somvir Singh (2006) 5
SCC 493, this Court held:- "23. 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 on employment, no recruitment was
permissible in law. The reservation policy adopted by the appellant had 17 not
been maintained. Even cases of minorities had not been given due consideration.

xxx xxx xxx

25. 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.


26. 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 of pay. Furthermore, only because the respondents have worked
for some time, the same by itself would not be a ground for directing
regularization of their services in view of the decision of this Court in
Umadevi(3)"

In State of M.P. & Ors. vs. Lalit Kumar Verma [(2007) 1 SCC 575], this
Court held:- "20. The decision to implement the judgment was evidently subject
to the decision of this Court.

But, the Special Leave Petition is barred by limitation. The question, inter
alia, which arises for consideration before us is as to whether we should
condone the delay or allow the respondent to continue to occupy the permanent
post.

18

21. The legal position somehow was uncertain before the decision rendered by
the Constitution Bench of this Court in Uma Devi (3) (supra). It has
categorically been stated before us that there was no vacant post in the
department in which the respondent could be reinstated. The State had also
adopted a policy decision regarding regularisation.

The said policy decision has also no application in the case of the
respondent. Even otherwise, it would be unconstitutional being hit by Article 16
of the Constitution of India."

In Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs. Ranjodh Singh & ors.,
[(2007) 2 SCC 491], this Court held:- "19. 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 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
ultravires."

19 In Postmaster General, Kolkata & Others vs. Tutu Das (Dutta) [(2007) 5
SCC 317], this Court held as under:- "20. The statement of law contained in para
53 of Umadevi (3)cannot also be invoked in this case.

The question has been considered by this Court in a large number of
decisions. We would, however, refer to only a few of them.

21. In Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board v.

Ranjodh Singh referring to paras 15, 16 and 53 of Umadevi (3) this Court:
(SCC pp. 500-01 paras 17-18) "17. A combined reading of the aforementioned
paragraphs would clearly indicate that what the Constitution Bench had in mind
in directing regularisation was in relation to such appointments, which were
irregular in nature and not illegal ones.


18. Distinction between irregularity and illegality is explicit. It has been
so pointed out in National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Somvir Singh in the following
terms: (SCC pp. 500- 01, paras 23-25) `23. 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 on employment, no recruitment was permissible in law.

The reservation policy adopted by the appellant had not been maintained.

20 Even cases of minorities had not been given due consideration.


24. The Constitution Bench thought of directing regularisation of the
services only of those employees whose appointments were irregular as explained
in State of Mysore v. S.V.

Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa v.

T. Thimmiah and B.N. Nagarajan v.

State of Karnataka wherein this Court observed: [Umadevi (3) case, SCC p. 24,
para 16] "16. In B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka this Court clearly held
that the words `regular' or `regularisation' 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."


25. 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.' "

(See also State of M.P. v. Yogesh Chandra Dubey and State of M.P. v.

Lalit Kumar Verma.) 21 The controversy, if any, in our opinion, has been
given a quietus by a three Judge Bench of this Court in Official Liquidator vs.
Dayanand & ors.

[(2008) 10 SCC 1], holding:

"75. By virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution, the judgment of the
Constitution Bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) is binding
on all the courts including this Court till the same is overruled by a larger
Bench. The ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment has been followed by
different two-Judges Benches for declining to entertain the claim of
regularization of service made by ad hoc/temporary/ daily wage/casual employees
or for reversing the orders of the High Court granting relief to such employees
– Indian Drugs and Pharamaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen [(2007) 1 SCC 408],
Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Ltd. [(2007) 1 SCC 533], Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan v. L.V.

Subramanyeswara [(2007) 5 SCC 326], Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Dan Bahadur
Singh [(2007) 6 SCC 207]. However, in U.P. SEB v. Pooran Chand Pandey (2007) 11
SCC 92 on which reliance has been placed by Shri Gupta, a two- Judges Bench has
attempted to dilute the Constitution Bench judgment by suggesting that the said
decision cannot be applied to a case where regularization has been sought for in
pursuance of Article 14 of the Constitution and that the same is in conflict
with the judgment of the seven-Judges Bench in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India[(1978) 1 SCC 248]."

22 The Court noticed that in U.P. SEB v. Pooran Chandra Pandey (supra), this
Court held:

"18. We may further point out that a seven-Judge Bench decision of this Court
in Maneka Gandhi v.

Union of India has held that reasonableness and non-arbitrariness is part of
Article 14 of the Constitution. It follows that the Government must act in a
reasonable and non-arbitrary manner otherwise Article 14 of the Constitution
would be violated. Maneka Gandhi case is a decision of a seven-Judge Bench,
whereas Umadevi (3) case is a decision of a five-Judge Bench of this Court. It
is well settled that a smaller Bench decision cannot override a larger Bench
decision of the Court. No doubt, Maneka Gandhi case does not specifically deal
with the question of regularisation of government employees, but the principle
of reasonableness in executive action and the law which it has laid down, in our
opinion, is of general application."

(Emphasis supplied) However, the said observations were not called for.

The Bench noticed several judgments/orders of different Benches taking a view
contrary to Uma Devi (3) (supra) to opine that those cases 23 were illustrative
of non-adherence to the rule of judicial discipline which is sine qua non for
sustaining the system. It was opined:

"90. We are distressed to note that despite several pronouncements on the
subject, there is substantial increase in the number of cases involving
violation of the basics of judicial discipline. The learned Single Judges and
Benches of the High Courts refuse to follow and accept the verdict and law laid
down by coordinate and even larger Benches by citing minor difference in the
facts as the ground for doing so. Therefore, it has become necessary to
reiterate that disrespect to constitutional ethos and breach of discipline have
grave impact on the credibility of judicial institution and encourages chance
litigation. It must be remembered that predictability and certainty is an
important hallmark of judicial jurisprudence developed in this country in last
six decades and increase in the frequency of conflicting judgments of the
superior judiciary will do incalculable harm to the system inasmuch as the
courts at the grass root will not be able to decide as to which of the judgments
lay down the correct law and which one should be followed.


91. We may add that in our constitutional set up every citizen is under a
duty to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions.

Those who have been entrusted with the task of administering the system and
operating various constituents of the State and who take oath to act in
accordance with the Constitution and uphold 24 the same, have to set an example
by exhibiting total commitment to the Constitutional ideals. This principle is
required to be observed with greater rigour by the members of judicial
fraternity who have been bestowed with the power to adjudicate upon important
constitutional and legal issues and protect and preserve rights of the
individuals and society as a whole. Discipline is sine qua non for effective and
efficient functioning of the judicial system. If the Courts command others to
act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and rule of law, it is
not possible to countenance violation of the constitutional principle by those
who are required to lay down the law.


92. In the light of what has been stated above, we deem it proper to clarify
that the comments and observations made by the two-Judges Bench in U.P. State
Electricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandey (supra) should be read as obiter and
the same should neither be treated as binding by the High Courts, Tribunals and
other judicial foras nor they should be relied upon or made basis for bypassing
the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench."

We feel bound by the observations made therein. Initial recruitment of the
respondents being wholly illegal and contrary to the constitutional 25 scheme of
this country, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be upheld. It is
set aside accordingly.


7. In the light of the decision in Uma Devi (3) (supra) and the
interpretation given to Para 53 therein by this Court in the abovementioned
judgments, the appeals are allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of
the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]
Exit mobile version