Void recruitment appointments do not support regularization or reinstatement, though illegal termination may still attract compensation.

An appointment made in breach of the governing statutory recruitment rules is void and cannot create a legal right to hold the post. Completion of 240 days of service, vacancy, standing orders, estoppel, or waiver do not by themselves confer entitlement to regularization or reinstatement. Regularization is not equivalent to permanency and cannot override constitutional or statutory requirements for appointment. However, where the employee has worked for the requisite period, termination without compliance with mandatory industrial law requirements is illegal; in the stated facts, reinstatement was nevertheless refused and compensation substituted.

---

---

Issues: Whether a temporary daily-wage employee appointed contrary to the governing recruitment regulations could claim regularization and reinstatement on the basis of vacancy, completion of 240 days of service, and the standing orders, and whether termination without compliance with the industrial law requirements was illegal.

Analysis: The appointment was not shown to have been made by the competent appointing authority under the service regulations. An appointment made contrary to the statutory recruitment framework is void and does not create a legal right to hold the post. Completion of 240 days of work, by itself, does not confer entitlement to regularization, and regularization cannot be equated with permanency. The standing orders could not override the constitutional and statutory requirements governing appointment. Estoppel or waiver could not validate an appointment made without authority. At the same time, since the employee had worked for the requisite period, termination without compliance with the mandatory industrial law requirement was illegal, but reinstatement was not warranted in the peculiar facts.

Conclusion: The employee was not entitled to regularization or reinstatement on the basis of the impugned appointment, and the challenge to the orders below succeeded. The termination was found illegal only for limited industrial law purposes, but compensation was substituted for reinstatement.

Ratio Decidendi: An appointment made in breach of the governing statutory recruitment rules is void and cannot be validated by long service, completion of 240 days, or estoppel; such service does not by itself confer a right to regularization or reinstatement.

---