State of U.P. Appointments Ruled Illegal and Void; Compliance with Constitutional Provisions Essential

The Court ruled that appointments made by the State of U.P. in violation of constitutional equality provisions are illegal and void ab initio. Regularization of employees in such cases is meant to cure procedural irregularities and must be initiated promptly. Compliance with constitutional and statutory provisions is crucial, and any policy decision for regularization without proper rules is impermissible. The High Court's errors were highlighted, leading to the appeal being allowed, with respondents to be compensated for delays, and the State authorized to recover from responsible officers. Impugned orders were set aside, and the appeal was allowed without costs.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the legality of appointments made by the State of U.P, the regularization of employees, compliance with constitutional and statutory provisions, and the authority of the High Court to issue orders in such matters.

Legality of Appointments:
The judgment addressed the legality of appointments made by the State of U.P, emphasizing that appointments made in violation of the constitutional scheme of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India are illegal and void ab initio. The Court highlighted that no regularization rules could be made by the State in derogation of the statutory or constitutional scheme. It was noted that the State must have rules in place, as per the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, for recruitment, which have statutory force. The Court differentiated between irregularity and illegality in appointments, stating that irregularity presupposes substantial compliance with rules, while illegality renders appointments illegal.

Regularization of Employees:
The judgment discussed the regularization of employees who had been irregularly appointed and had worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned vacant posts. The Court referred to previous decisions and emphasized that regularization does not connote permanence but is meant to cure procedural irregularities. It was clarified that the process of regularization should be initiated within six months for such cases. The Court highlighted that employees must be duly qualified and appointments should not bypass constitutional requirements.

Compliance with Constitutional and Statutory Provisions:
The judgment underscored the importance of compliance with constitutional and statutory provisions in appointments and regularization of employees. It was noted that the appointments in question were illegal as they were not made in accordance with recruitment rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Court stated that any policy decision adopted by the State for regularization of employees is impermissible in law.

Authority of the High Court:
The judgment critiqued the High Court's handling of the case, pointing out legal errors in the orders passed. The Court set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the respondents should be compensated due to the delay in the appeal process. The State was granted the authority to recover the compensation amount from responsible officers. The judgment concluded by setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeal without costs.

---