AMARKANT RAI versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 3 S.C.R. 542 · Decided: 13-03-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 542 
AMARKANT RAI 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2835 of 2015) 
MARCH 13, 2015 
[V.GOPALA GOWDA AND R.BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Labour laws: Regularisation of service - Post of Night 
Guard-Appointment of appellant temporarily on daily wages 
-: University took a decision to regularize the persons who 
worked for more than 240 days - Principal requested the 
D Registrar of University to regularise the services of appellant 
but Registrar passed order of termination - On writ petition 
preferred by few similarly placed daily wagers, High Court 
directed registrar to allow daily wagers to resume their jobs 
and appellant also joined his duties -Appellant was required 
E to appear before the Three Members Committee for 
consideration of his claim for regularisation of services, but 
the same was rejected on the ground that it was a clear case 
of violation of BSU Act, 1976 - Held: Appellant served 
University for more than 29 years on the post of Night Guard 
F on daily wages - For a considerable time, University never 
raised the issue that the appointment of the appellant was 
ultra vires the rules of BSU Act- Having regard to the various 
communications between the Principal and the University 
G and also the education authorities and the facts of the case, 
the appointment of the appellant cannot be termed to be 
illegal, but it can only be termed as irregular- In *Umadevi's 
case, ·it was provided that irregular appointment in duly 
sanctioned posts who have worked for 10 years or more can 
H be considered on merits end steps to be taken one time 
542 
AMARKANT RAI v. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 
543 
measure to regularize them - The objective behind the A 
exception carved out in that case was to permit regularization 
of such appointments which are irregular but not illegal and 
to ensure security of employment of those persons who 
served the State Government and their instrumentalities for 
more than 10 years -
The said exception carved out in B 
Umadevi is applicable to the facts of the present case - There 
is no material that the appellant has been lacking any 
qualification or bear any blemish record during his 
employment for over two decades - Considering the facts C 
and circumstances of the case that the appellant has served 
the University for more than 29 years, in the interest of justice, 
the authorities directed to regularize the services of the 
appellant retrospectively- Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 
- SS. 10(6), 35. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The appointment of the appellant as 
Night Guard was done out of necessity and concern for 
the college. The Principal of the college had E 
recommended the case of the appellant for 
regularization on the post of Night Guard and the 
University was thus well acquainted with the 
appointment of the appellant by the then Principal even F 
though Principal was not a competent authority to make 
such appointments and thus the appointment of the 
appellant and other employees was brought to the notice 
of the University in 1988. For a considerable time, 
University never raised the issue that the appointment G 
of the appellant by the Principal was ultra vi res the rules 
of BSU Act. Having regard to the various 
communications between the Principal and the 
University and also the education authorities and the 
H 
544 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A facts of the case, the appointment of the appellant cannot 
be termed to be illegal, but it can only be termed as 
. irregular. [Para 9] [548-E-H; 549-A] 
2. The State Government intimated to the 
B Registrar of all the Colleges that as per the settlement 
held between 8ihar State University and College 
Employees Federation and the Government it was 
agreed that the services of the employees working in 
the education institutions on the basis of prescribed 
C staffing pattern are to be regularized. As per sanctioned 
staffing pattern, there were two vacant posts of Class IV 
employees and the appellant was appointed against the 
same. [Para 1 OJ [549-8-D] 
D 
E 
3. The objective behind the exception carved out 
in *Umadevi's case was to permit regularization of such 
appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to 
ensure security of employment of those persons who 
served the State Government and their instrumentalities 
for more than ten years. The exception carved out in 
Umadevi is applicable to the facts of the present case. 
There is no ma

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