Leave vacancy appointment gives no right to regularization; interim approval cannot override final recruitment legality.

Appointment made against a leave vacancy does not confer a right to regularization in a permanent post unless the governing recruitment rules for substantive appointment are satisfied. Interim approval granted during pendency of proceedings remains provisional and does not create a vested right to continued service after final adjudication. Back wages were also unsustainable because there was no lawful entitlement to continue in service and no work was performed after the adverse final order. The Division Bench judgment was set aside, the Single Judge's decision restored, and the challenge to refusal of regularization failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether appointment made against a leave vacancy could be treated as an appointment against a permanent vacancy and result in regularization of service; (ii) whether the interim approval granted during pendency of the writ petition conferred a final right to continued service notwithstanding the final adjudication; (iii) whether back wages could be awarded when the employee was not permitted to work after the writ petition was finally dismissed.

Issue (i): whether appointment made against a leave vacancy could be treated as an appointment against a permanent vacancy and result in regularization of service.

Analysis: The recruitment framework distinguished between leave vacancies and permanent vacancies, and the procedure for filling them was materially different. Appointment in a leave vacancy was made for a limited purpose and did not dispense with the requirements applicable to a substantive vacancy, including the prescribed process for regular recruitment. Approval granted in relation to a leave vacancy could not, by itself, mature into a right to regularization in the permanent post.

Conclusion: The claim to regularization was not sustainable and was against the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether the interim approval granted during pendency of the writ petition conferred a final right to continued service notwithstanding the final adjudication.

Analysis: An interim order is provisional and remains subject to the final outcome of the proceeding. The absence of a challenge to the interim order did not prevent the court from examining the correctness of the final adjudication or the legal basis of the provisional approval. The final judgment could validly ignore an interim arrangement that was inconsistent with the governing recruitment rules.

Conclusion: The interim approval did not create any vested right in favour of the respondent.

Issue (iii): whether back wages could be awarded when the employee was not permitted to work after the writ petition was finally dismissed.

Analysis: Back wages are not payable as a matter of course where the employee had no lawful entitlement to continue in service and no work was actually performed after the adverse final order. The equitable grant of 50% back wages was inconsistent with the settled principle that wages normally follow work lawfully done.

Conclusion: The award of back wages was unsustainable and was against the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside, the decision of the learned Single Judge was restored, and the challenge to the refusal of regularization failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Appointment in a leave vacancy does not confer a right to regularization in a permanent post unless the governing recruitment rules for substantive appointment are satisfied, and an interim order cannot override the final adjudication on legality.

---