Illegal appointment versus irregular appointment: daily-wage service outside recruitment rules cannot justify regularisation or permanent status.

An appointment made in total disregard of the constitutional scheme and statutory recruitment rules is illegal, while an irregular appointment is one where the rules are substantially complied with but some procedural requirement is not strictly followed; the distinction turns on whether the defect goes to the root of the appointment. A daily-wage worker appointed dehors the recruitment rules, without a sanctioned post, clear vacancy, or valid selection, acquires no legal right to regularisation or permanent status merely through long continuance in service. The Court therefore held that such relief could not be granted for an illegal appointment, set aside the directions for permanency, and protected benefits already paid from recovery.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether there is a distinction between an irregular appointment and an illegal appointment. (ii) Whether a daily-wage employee appointed dehors the statutory recruitment rules and without a sanctioned post could be regularised or classified as a permanent employee.

Issue (i): Whether there is a distinction between an irregular appointment and an illegal appointment.

Analysis: An appointment made in total disregard of the constitutional scheme and the applicable recruitment rules is illegal. An appointment may be irregular where the constitutional and statutory requirements are substantially complied with, but some procedural requirement has not been strictly followed. The distinction depends on whether the defect goes to the root of the appointment or only to the manner of making it.

Conclusion: An illegal appointment is distinct from an irregular appointment.

Issue (ii): Whether a daily-wage employee appointed dehors the statutory recruitment rules and without a sanctioned post could be regularised or classified as a permanent employee.

Analysis: The respondent was not appointed against a clear vacancy, was not selected in accordance with the statutory rules, had no sanctioned post, and had not been given any ticket of permanent employee. Mere long continuance on daily wages did not create a legal right to permanency or regularisation. In the absence of a valid appointment under the constitutional scheme, the Labour Court and the High Court were not justified in directing regularisation or permanent classification.

Conclusion: The respondent was not entitled to regularisation or permanent status.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgments were set aside, the direction granting permanent status was reversed, and the appeal was allowed with protection against recovery of benefits already paid and compensation for delay.

Ratio Decidendi: Regularisation or permanent classification cannot be granted to a person whose appointment is illegal, being made dehors the recruitment rules and without a sanctioned post; only irregular appointments may, in appropriate cases, be considered for such relief.

---