ACCOUNTS OFFICER (A & I) APSRTC AND ORS. versus K. V. RAMANA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 231 · Decided: 08-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
,. 
' 
"( 
... . ., 
ACCOUNTS OFFICER (A & I) APSRTC AND ORS. 
v. 
K. V. RAMANA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 8, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Labour Law: 
Contract sweeper and attender-Claiming regularization-Held, even 
if contract labours/casual workers/ad hoc employees have worked for a 
long period, they cannot be regularized de hors the rules for selection-
A circular cannot override Article 16 of the Constitution-Constitution of 
India-Article 16. 
Respondents were engaged as contract sweepers and attenders in the 
appellant-State Road Transport Corporation in May/August 1992. They 
filed a writ petition in the High Court stating that though they had 
completed 240 days of continuous service without any break, but since 
10.5.1998 they were not given any work. They prayed that the Corporation 
be directed to regularize their services. The stand of the Corporation was 
that as the respondents were neither selected nor appointed through the 
Departmental Selection Committee in accordance with the prescribed 
procedure, their case for regularization could not be considered. The 
single Judge directed regularization of the respondents. The appeals of the 
Corporation having been dismissed by the Division Bench of the High 
Court, it filed the present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: In view of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in 
Uma Devi's* case, absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of 
temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees de hors the 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
rules and constitutional scheme of public employment cannot be granted by 
G 
the Courts. As regards the circular dated 26.10.1988, the same cannot 
override Article 16 of the Constitution, and hence regularization cannot be 
granted under the said circular. Even ifthe contract labourers or casual 
workers or ad hoc employees have worked for a Jong period they cannot 
be regularized de hors the rules for selection. [Para 9) [233-G-H, 234-A] 
H 
231 
232 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] I S.C.R 
A 
*Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) & Ors., (2006) 
B 
c 
D 
4 sect, followed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 96 of2007. 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 30.4.2003 of the High Court 
of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.A. No. 629/2003. 
WITH 
C.A. No. 97 /2007 
R. Santhan Krishnan, Praveen K. Pandey and D. Mahesh Babu for the 
Appellants. 
M/s. P.S.N. & Co.for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. : Leave granted. 
2. These appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of the 
E 
Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 30.4.2003 in Writ Appeal No.629 of2003 
and Writ Appeal No.584 of 2003. For the sake of convenience we will deal 
with the facts of Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.9098/2004. 
F 
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 
4. The facts of the case are that the respondents I and 2 in this appeal 
were appointed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation 
(hereinafter referred to as "the corporation") as contract sweeper and 
attender on 1.5.1992 and respondent no.3 was appointed as such on 
1.8.1992. They submitted representations to appellant no. I and 2 for 
G 
regularization of their services claiming that they have completed 240 days 
of continuous service without any break but since 10.5.1998 the appellants 
were not giving them work. Hence the respondents filed a writ petition 
being Writ Petition No.10678 of 1996 which was disposed of by the High 
Court on 17.l 0.1997 directing the corporation to consider the case of these 
H 
employees for regularization of service. 
• 
y .. 
.. . ,,. 
ACCOUNTSOFFICER(A&I)APSRTCv. K.V.RAMANA[KATJU,J.] 
233 
5. By order dated 31.3.1998 the representation of the writ petitioners 
A 
was rejected on the ground that their regularization can only be considered 
when they are recruited through the prescribed Departmental Selection 
Committee and after undergoing a selection process. Since, they were not 
selected and appointed in accordance with the aforesaid procedure, their 
case for regularization could not be considered. Aggrieved the respondents 
(writ petitioners) filed a writ appeal no.6948 of 1999 which was allowed by 
a learned Single Judge of the High Court. 
6. In the counter affidavit filed by the Corporation in the writ petition 
B 
it was stated that the petitioners were entrusted the work of th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.