Illegal appointments under statutory service rules cannot be regularised, and writ relief cannot create a right to continuance.

Appointments made outside the governing Act, Rules and Regulations were treated as illegal and incapable of regularisation because regularisation cannot cure a breach of statutory procedure or Articles 14 and 16. The State's policy directions addressing such appointments were considered within its statutory sphere and were not found to be arbitrary or discriminatory merely because they applied a cut-off date and a last-come-first-go approach. The High Court could not quash termination orders or direct continuance and regularisation where no lawful right to hold the posts had arisen.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether appointments made dehors the Act and the Regulations could be treated as valid or capable of regularisation; (ii) whether the State could issue policy directions under the statute for cancellation of such appointments and whether those directions were arbitrary or discriminatory; (iii) whether the High Court was justified in quashing the termination orders and directing regularisation.

Issue (i): Whether appointments made dehors the Act and the Regulations could be treated as valid or capable of regularisation.

Analysis: The Act, the Rules and the Regulations governed appointments to the Board and the Market Committees. The statutory scheme required appointments to be made only in accordance with the prescribed procedure and terms of service. Ad hoc, daily-wage, work-charged or part-time engagement outside the statutory framework did not create a legal employer-employee relationship conferring any right to continue in service. Regularisation could not be used to legalise appointments made in violation of the statutory rules or constitutional requirements under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The appointments were illegal and without jurisdiction, and no right to regularisation arose in favour of the employees.

Issue (ii): Whether the State could issue policy directions under the statute for cancellation of such appointments and whether those directions were arbitrary or discriminatory.

Analysis: The State's power under Section 26-M of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 was confined to policy directions. Although the impugned instructions were not shown to have been issued in the precise constitutional form contemplated by Articles 162 and 166 of the Constitution of India, the directions proceeded on the basis of illegal appointments and applied a cut-off period with a last-come-first-go approach. In that context, the directions were not held to be mala fide or wholly irrational. The principle that there can be no equality in illegality also defeated the challenge based on alleged past practice.

Conclusion: The State could not validly exercise statutory power beyond the Act, but the directions were not struck down as arbitrary or discriminatory.

Issue (iii): Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the termination orders and directing regularisation.

Analysis: The High Court's view that the appointments were protected or that natural justice independently required prior hearing was not accepted. Where retrenchment was effected in accordance with the industrial law framework, the separate requirement of natural justice did not arise unless the termination was punitive or stigmatic. Since the employees had no enforceable legal right to remain in service after appointments made contrary to statute, the High Court could not issue mandamus directing continuance or regularisation. The direction to frame a regularisation scheme also could not stand because regularisation cannot be treated as a mode of appointment for illegal appointees.

Conclusion: The High Court's orders were unsustainable and were set aside to that extent.

Final Conclusion: The governing statute and regulations controlled appointments to the Board and Market Committees, illegal appointments could not be regularised, and the High Court could not compel continuance of employees appointed outside the statutory framework; accordingly, the appeals succeeded to the extent indicated by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Regularisation cannot cure an appointment made in violation of statutory rules and constitutional requirements, and a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to continue or regularise persons who never acquired a lawful right to hold the post.

---