Judiciary Can't Create Job Posts: SC Overturns Lower Courts, Reinstates Trial Court's Dismissal, Upholds Separation of Powers.

The SC allowed the appeal, overturning the HC and First Appellate Court's decisions, and reinstated the Trial Court's dismissal of the suit. The SC ruled that the judiciary cannot direct the creation of posts, as it is an executive or legislative function. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the separation of powers, cautioning against judicial overreach and reaffirming the need for judicial restraint. Consequently, the plaintiffs' request for regularization as tractor drivers was denied, as no sanctioned posts existed for such positions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Regularization of employees against non-existent posts.
2. Jurisdiction of courts in directing the creation of posts.
3. Separation of powers between the judiciary, executive, and legislature.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Regularization of Employees Against Non-Existent Posts:
The plaintiffs were initially appointed as Mali (gardeners) on daily wages and later were assigned the duties of tractor drivers, despite no official post of tractor driver existing in the employer's establishment. They continued to be paid as Mali for several years before being paid as tractor drivers on a daily wage basis. Their services were regularized as Mali in 1999. Dissatisfied, they filed a civil suit in 2001 seeking regularization as tractor drivers. The Trial Court dismissed their suit, stating that there was no sanctioned post of tractor driver. The First Appellate Court, however, directed the creation of the post of tractor driver and regularization of the plaintiffs on these posts. The High Court upheld this decision, leading to the present appeal.

2. Jurisdiction of Courts in Directing the Creation of Posts:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the creation and sanction of posts is an executive or legislative function, not a judicial one. The Court stated, "The Court cannot direct the creation of posts. Creation and sanction of posts is a prerogative of the executive or legislative authorities and the Court cannot arrogate to itself this purely executive or legislative function, and direct creation of posts in any organization." The directions given by the First Appellate Court and the High Court to create posts of tractor driver were beyond their jurisdiction and thus were set aside.

3. Separation of Powers Between the Judiciary, Executive, and Legislature:
The judgment extensively discussed the principle of separation of powers, emphasizing that each organ of the State-the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary-must function within its own domain. The Court remarked, "Judges must exercise judicial restraint and must not encroach into the executive or legislative domain." The judgment cited various precedents and theoretical frameworks, including Montesquieu's theory of separation of powers, to underline the importance of maintaining the delicate balance among the three branches of government. The Court warned against judicial overreach, stating, "If the judiciary does not exercise restraint and over-stretches its limits, there is bound to be a reaction from politicians and others."

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the High Court and the First Appellate Court, and upheld the Trial Court's decision. The suit was dismissed, reaffirming that the judiciary should not encroach upon the functions of the executive or legislature. The Court reiterated the need for judicial restraint and respect for the separation of powers to maintain the constitutional balance.

---