TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 483
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent incumbent rejoined the service. The educational qualifications of the appellant satisfied the requirements prescribed under the relevant service rules. Vide letter dated 16.05.1986, the terms of the appointment order dated 23.07.1984 was modified by providing that the appointment was to last till the regular incumbent joined back or 20.05.1986, whichever was earlier. 4. Aggrieved by the said modification in the terms of appointment, the appellant filed a Writ Petition No. 3316 (SS) of 1986 before the High Court challenging the modified terms of the appointment. On 19.05.1986, the management of the College issued another order dispensing with the services of the appellant w.e.f. 20.05.1986. 5. A learned Single Judge vide order dated 20.05.1986 while issuing notice to the respondents stayed the operation of the order dated 16.05.1986 modifying the terms of the appointment order. It was further provided that the interim order shall automatically lapse on return of the permanent incumbent Smt. Safia Khatoon. 6. It so happened that Smt. Safia Khatoon did not rejoin the service, as a result her services were terminated vide order dated 16.01.1988. It is undisputed fact that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e observations contained in the judgment of the learned Single Judge rejected her claim for regularization. Her claim for regularization was mainly rejected on the ground that since her initial appointment was on leave vacancy for which there was no provision under the 2001 Rules, as such she cannot be held to be entitled to the benefit conferred by Regularization Rules, 2001. 11. This order was again put to challenge by the appellant by filing yet another Writ Petition No. 8597 of 2010. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 15.05.2014 allowed the same on the following reasonings :- i. Petitioner has been working since 23.07.1984 and in the earlier round of litigation, the High Court had held her entitled to hold the post. The judgment dated 23.01.2006 had become final and was unchallenged. ii. Regularization Rules, 2001 were applicable to the petitioner. The earlier judgment had found petitioner to be entitled to hold the post. Respondents' refusal to apply the Regularization Rules, 2001 was accordingly unlawful. iii. A quietus needs to be given to long drawn litigation and the petitioner is entitled for regularizati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the High Court mainly on the reasoning that the petitioner (appellant herein) was employed on a temporary basis against the leave vacancy and since the Service Rules, 1983 did not permit any appointment on leave vacancy, the appointment of the petitioner (appellant herein) was illegal appointment of 'stop-gap nature'. Analyzing the Regularization Rules, 2001 the Division Bench found that there was no provision for regularization of an appointment made against the leave vacancy. 18. Relying upon the observations made by this Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1 wherein it was held that since the initial appointment of the petitioner (appellant herein) was dehors the Rules and thus was illegal and her appointment was litigious appointment and she continued on the strength of an interim order passed by the High Court on 20.05.1986, she was not entitled for regularization. 19. The Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Umadevi (3) has held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless the appointment has been made in accordance with the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... down in the judgment of Umadevi (3), carving an exception to the general principles against 'regularization', the Division Bench of the High Court has held that since the appointment of the appellant was dehors the rules and without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, as such the same is illegal and since she continued in service under the cover of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, her appointment is litigious and thus is not covered by exception carved out in the case of Umadevi (3). 22. Referring to the observations made in the case of Umadevi (3) paragraph 53 quoted herein above, this Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. M.L. Kesari & Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 247 has laid down the conditions to test when the appointment will be considered illegal and when it shall be considered to be irregular. It may be relevant to extract paragraph 7 from the said report, which reads as under:- "It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against `regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled : (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion before the High Court. She again approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 7890 of 2003 challenging the order passed by the Joint Director of Education rejecting her claim of regularization. The two pending Writ Petitions were clubbed by the High Court and disposed of vide common judgment and order dated 23.01.2006 with the finding that the appellant is having all the requisite qualification and has worked for 21 years and she might have been appointed in a leave arrangement but by virtue of her satisfactory services, she has now acquired a Right to hold the post and continued in the institution and at this stage, it would not be appropriate to treat her as an appointee in a stop-gap arrangement and accordingly directed the State-respondent to consider for regularization under the relevant Regularization Rules. 27. This Judgment attained finality inter-se between the parties as admittedly the State-respondent did not put the same to challenge before any higher forum. The aforesaid judgment which attained finality crystallized the right of the appellant for regularization. When the same was refused by the Joint Director of Education, it was again challenged by filin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t advanced by the appellant in the said case that the judgment of this Court dated 18.01.2001 in Gujarat Agricultural University Vs. Rathod Labhu Bechar & Ors. (2001) 3 SCC 574 does not survive after the judgment of this Court in Umadevi(3). It was held in paragraph 11 as under:- "11. We have heard Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the university and Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents. The main contention of the university is that after the judgment of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi and Ors. 2 , the respondents are not entitled for regularization as there are no sanctioned posts available. Another submission made on behalf of the appellant is that the judgment of this Court dated 18.01.2001 in Gujarat Agricultural University (supra) does not survive after the judgment of this Court in Umadevi. It is no doubt true that in Umadevi's case, it has been held that regularization as a one-time measure can only be in respect of those who were irregularly appointed and have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned posts. However, in the instant case the respondents are covered by the judgment of this Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate Court." 34. In Rupa Ashok Hurra Vs. Ashok Hurra & Anr.(1999) 2 SCC 103 , while dealing with an identical issue this Court held that reconsideration of the judgment of this Court which has attained finality is not normally permissible. The decision upon a question of law rendered by this Court was conclusive and would bind the Court in subsequent cases. The Court cannot sit in appeal against its own judgment. 35. In Union of India & Ors. Vs. Major S.P. Sharma & Ors. (2014) 6 SCC 351 , a three-judge bench of this Court has held as under:- "A decision rendered by a competent court cannot be challenged in collateral proceedings for the reason that if it is permitted to do so there would be "confusion and chaos and the finality of proceedings would cease to have any meaning." 36. Thus, it is very well settled that it is not permissible for the parties to re-open the concluded judgments of the Court as the same may not only tantamount to an abuse of the process of the Court but would have far reaching adverse effect on the administration of justice. 37. It is undisputed that in compliance of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 15.05.2014 vide order dated 31.10.2....