2007 (5) TMI 694 - SC - Indian Laws

Court Rules Ad-Hoc Appointments Not Eligible for Regularization; Emphasizes Following Constitutional Recruitment Rules.

The SC set aside the HC's judgment, ruling that the respondents' ad-hoc appointments did not warrant regularization. The Court emphasized the necessity of ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of ad-hoc appointments.2. Right to regularization of services.3. Applicability of the Constitution Bench decision in Umadevi.4. Interpretation of 'irregular' vs. 'illegal' appointments.5. Principle of 'equal pay for equal work.'Comprehensive, Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Ad-hoc Appointments:The Appellant, an autonomous body, governed by the Appointment, Promotion, Security, etc., Rules, 1971, appointed teachers on an ad-hoc basis due to exigencies of work. These appointments were made without following the regular selection process and were clearly stipulated as temporary with no right to claim regular appointment. The Tribunal acknowledged that these appointments were ad-hoc and did not confer any right to the post.2. Right to Regularization of Services:The High Court directed the regularization of the respondents' services, stating that they had worked continuously despite being appointed on an ad-hoc basis. The respondents argued that their long-term service and requisite qualifications entitled them to regularization. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that regularization does not equate to permanence and must comply with established rules and procedures. The Court highlighted that the respondents' continued service was due to interim orders and not through a regular selection process.3. Applicability of the Constitution Bench Decision in Umadevi:The Supreme Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, which clarified that regularization is not a mode of recruitment and cannot confer permanence. The decision emphasized that only irregular appointments, not illegal ones, could be regularized if they met certain conditions, such as working for ten years or more without court intervention. The Court found that the respondents' appointments did not meet these criteria as they were continued in service due to court orders.4. Interpretation of 'Irregular' vs. 'Illegal' Appointments:The Court distinguished between 'irregular' and 'illegal' appointments, stating that irregular appointments could be regularized if they were made in sanctioned posts and the appointees were qualified. However, appointments made in violation of constitutional provisions or rules are illegal and cannot be regularized. The respondents' appointments were deemed illegal as they did not follow the prescribed selection process and were made to meet temporary needs.5. Principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work':The High Court had applied the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' to the respondents. However, the Supreme Court reiterated that this principle does not justify regularization or conferment of permanence. The Court held that the principle of equal pay cannot lead to treating temporary or ad-hoc appointments as permanent, as it would violate the constitutional requirement of equal opportunity in public employment.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that the respondents' ad-hoc appointments did not entitle them to regularization. The Court emphasized adherence to constitutional provisions and established rules for public employment. The appeals were allowed, and no costs were imposed.