Permanency in service cannot rest on inapplicable materials or sympathy when statutory recruitment rules govern selection.

Permanency in service could not be sustained where the award and circulars relied on were confined to daily-rated workmen in the Engineering Department and did not apply to a fee-based dental surgeon; absent those materials, the finding rested on no evidence and was an error of law. Statutory recruitment rules governing advertisement, applications and Selection Committee selection could not be displaced by sympathy or equity, so absorption in permanent service was impermissible. The award and judgment under challenge were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the finding that the respondent was entitled to permanency in the Corporation's service was sustainable when the award and circulars relied upon were inapplicable to his case; (ii) whether sympathy or equity could justify absorption in permanent service contrary to statutory recruitment rules.

Issue (i): Whether the finding that the respondent was entitled to permanency in the Corporation's service was sustainable when the award and circulars relied upon were inapplicable to his case.

Analysis: The award in the earlier industrial reference and the circulars issued pursuant to it concerned daily-rated workmen in the Engineering Department. They did not apply to a dental surgeon engaged on a fee basis at the Corporation's dental clinics. Once those materials were excluded, the finding of permanency was unsupported by any evidence. A finding based on no evidence constitutes an error of law apparent on the face of the record, and the High Court ought to have interfered under Article 226.

Conclusion: The finding of permanency was unsustainable and could not be upheld against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether sympathy or equity could justify absorption in permanent service contrary to statutory recruitment rules.

Analysis: Recruitment to the Corporation's clinics was governed by statutory rules requiring advertisement, applications, and selection by the Selection Committee. The respondent had applied but was not selected. In such a regime, sympathy or equity cannot be used to bypass the prescribed process, because doing so would render the recruitment rules nugatory and invite arbitrariness.

Conclusion: Absorption on the basis of sympathy was impermissible and the tribunal's reasoning on that ground was erroneous.

Final Conclusion: The award and the judgment under challenge were set aside, and the Corporation succeeded in establishing that permanency could not be granted dehors the governing rules and without evidentiary support.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding unsupported by applicable evidence is vulnerable as an error of law, and statutory recruitment rules cannot be overridden by sympathy or equity.

---