Supreme Court emphasizes adherence to constitutional provisions in regularizing daily wage employees

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order directing a Municipal Corporation to regularize daily wage employees based on a superseded policy. The Court emphasized adherence to constitutional provisions and recruitment rules, highlighting that regularisation does not confer permanence on appointments made in violation of rules. The Court clarified the distinction between irregular and illegal appointments, noting that regularisation must comply with the constitutional scheme. The High Court's directions were invalidated, and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Regularisation of daily wage employees.
2. Compliance with constitutional provisions and recruitment rules.
3. Validity of High Court's directions.
4. Distinction between irregular and illegal appointments.
5. Contempt of court proceedings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Regularisation of Daily Wage Employees:
The appellant, a Municipal Corporation, had appointed a large number of employees on daily wages without following the recruitment procedure laid down by the rules framed by the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Corporation had a policy to regularise employees working prior to 31st December 1983 based on seniority and eligibility. However, the High Court directed the Corporation to prepare a fresh gradation list and regularise employees as per the Ramdhar Case.

2. Compliance with Constitutional Provisions and Recruitment Rules:
The appellant argued that the High Court erred in issuing directions based on a superseded policy decision. The Supreme Court held that the appellant, being a "State" under Article 12, must adhere to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the recruitment rules. It was noted that the appointments were made without advertisement or notification to the employment exchange, violating the principle of public employment under Article 16.

3. Validity of High Court's Directions:
The High Court's directions were challenged on the grounds that they were based on a superseded policy and contradicted the Constitution Bench judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3). The Supreme Court emphasized that regularisation is not a mode of appointment and must comply with constitutional and recruitment rules. The High Court's directions were found inconsistent with the constitutional scheme and the State's subsequent policy.

4. Distinction Between Irregular and Illegal Appointments:
The Supreme Court distinguished between irregular and illegal appointments. Illegal appointments are made in total disregard of the constitutional scheme and recruitment rules, while irregular appointments may involve minor procedural lapses. The Court cited R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka to highlight that regularisation cannot confer permanence on appointments made in violation of rules.

5. Contempt of Court Proceedings:
The High Court issued directions under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, without a clear finding of how the Corporation violated its order. The Supreme Court noted that the Corporation was bound by the State's directions, and if it violated the State's reversed policy, it could not be held in contempt. The judgment of the Division Bench was subject to correction under Article 136 of the Constitution and Section 19 of the Contempt of Court Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's impugned order, emphasizing adherence to constitutional provisions and recruitment rules. The Court clarified that regularisation is not a mode of appointment and must comply with the constitutional scheme. The appeal was allowed, and the directions issued by the High Court were invalidated.

---