Quasi-contract obligations: schools, not the State, bear salary liability for irregular appointments; Umadevi paragraph 53 inapplicable.

Appointments made in breach of mandatory statutory recruitment rules cannot be regularised and the financial obligation to pay remuneration for services rendered in such irregular appointments lies on the appointing school or educational institution under the doctrine of quasi contract (Section 70, Indian Contract Act), not on the State where statutory approval was absent. The safeguard in paragraph 53 of Umadevi (3) is inapplicable where the irregular appointments were the subject of prior litigation and the institution's request for approval was rejected; consequently regularisation under that provision is not available in such circumstances.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State is liable to bear the financial burden of salaries of teachers appointed in contravention of the statutory recruitment rules, or whether the liability lies on the school/educational institution; (ii) Whether paragraph 53 of the Constitution Bench decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) applies so as to permit regularisation of services in the present case.

Issue (i): Whether the State is liable to pay salaries to teachers appointed in violation of mandatory recruitment rules, or whether the school authorities alone are liable.

Analysis: The Court examined the statutory recruitment scheme and the effect of appointments made in violation of mandatory provisions. It distinguished between rights arising under contract/statute and obligations arising under principles of restitution/quasi-contract. The Court applied the principle that illegality in public employment cannot be regularised and that the doctrine of quasi-contract (Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act) may give rise to a claim for salary against the employer (school) but cannot be invoked to impose liability on the State where statutory approval was not obtained.

Conclusion: The respondents are entitled to payment of salary by the school authorities on principles of quasi-contract, but the doctrine of quasi-contract cannot be applied to impose liability on the State. Thus the financial liability lies with the school/educational institution and not the State.

Issue (ii): Whether paragraph 53 of Umadevi (3) permits regularisation of the respondents' services in this case.

Analysis: The Court considered paragraph 53 of Umadevi (3) and related authorities, noting the conditional applicability of paragraph 53 to cases where irregular appointments have not been the subject of pending litigation. The Court found that the present appointments had been the subject of litigation and that the institution's application for approval had been rejected; therefore the safeguards and exceptions in paragraph 53 do not apply.

Conclusion: Paragraph 53 of Umadevi (3) does not apply; the respondents' services cannot be regularised under that provision given the pending litigation and prior rejection of approval.

Final Conclusion: The State is not liable to pay the salaries of the teachers appointed in breach of mandatory recruitment rules; the teachers may claim salary from the school authorities under principles of quasi-contract (Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act), and regularisation under paragraph 53 of Umadevi (3) is not available where the matter was pending and approval had been rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Appointments made in violation of mandatory statutory recruitment provisions are illegal and cannot be regularised; where employees have rendered services despite absence of valid approval, remuneration may be recoverable from the appointing school under the doctrine of quasi-contract (Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act), but that doctrine cannot be used to fasten liability on the State.

---