ARUN KUMAR ROUT AND ORS. versus STA TE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 314 · Decided: 20-11-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY, S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
ARUN KUMAR ROUT AND ORS. 
v. 
STA TE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 20, 1997 
(G.N. RAY AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.) 
Service law-Appointment on daily wages-Regularisation-
Subsequent termination of services-Validity of-Government of Bihar-Health 
Department-Appointment of appellants on daily wages-Appointment 
C regularised subsequently-Thereafter services of the appellants terminated-
Ground that appointments were made without following due procedure-
Writ preferred by appellants dismissed by High Court-Hence appeal before 
this Court-Held, the appellants had not been appointed by following the 
due procedure and therefore they cannot claim regularisation as a matter of 
course-But considering the fact that (i) they had satisfactorily served the 
D department even without getting any salary for a long; (ii) they were not 
guilty of any fraud or sharp practice; (iii) they did not lack in requisite 
qualification and (iv) they had been appointed against sanctioned posts, the 
appellants deserve sympathetic consideration-Direction that 50 per cent of 
the sanctioned posts which were held by these appellants should be filled 
E from amongst the appellants on the basis of their inter se merit position by 
taking into account their academic qualifications by waiving question of age 
bar if any and usual procedures for such appointment-The remaining 50 per 
cent of the said sanctioned posts, will be filled up on regular basis by 
throwing it open to the members of the public and following the procedure 
prescribed for such appointment-The remaining appellants who will not be 
F absorbed against 50 per cent of the said sanctioned posts will be entitled 
to compete for appointment along with other eligible candidates but they 
will not be treated unsuitable on account of age bar-They will be given a 
credit of 25 per cent marks for the experience they have gained-This order 
being confined to the special facts of this case is not to be treated as a 
precedent. 
G 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.8336 of 1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.9.94 of the Patna High Court in 
C.W.J.C. No. 13043of1993. 
Shanti Bhushan, Jayant Bhushan and (M.C. Dhingra) for the Appellants. 
314 
' • 
'· 
. .
il
~ 
:::l 
' 
ARUN KUMAR ROUT v. STATE 
315 
B.B. Singh for the Respondents. 
A 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
L_eave granted. 
Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against 
the order dated 23.9.1994 passed by the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 13043 B 
of 1993. The writ petition filed by the appellants, 20 in number, claiming 
regularisation in the Health Department of the Government of Bihar was 
dismissed by the impugned judgment All the said 20 appellants were appointed 
on 1st of January 1980 by the Civil Surgeon, Dumka in Class III and Class IV 
posts as daily wager. On 30th March 1989 the appointments of the appellants C 
were regularised on the recommendation of the Appointment Committee. On 
25.8.1993 the District Level Establishment Committee issued show cause notices 
to the appellants asking them to show cause why their appointments should 
not be cancelled in view of the fact that they got irregular appointmentts 
Ultimately on 14.10.93 the services of the appellants were terminated. It has 
been found as a matter of fact that at the time of initial appointment, no D 
advertisement had been given and the names of these appellants were also 
not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. There is, however, no dispute 
that they are not lacking in requisite qualifications for appointment to the 
respective posts in Class Ill or Class IV. There is also nothing on record to 
suggest that in obtaining the said appointments the appellants were guilty of E 
any fraud or privy to any irregularity Although in the matter of getting 
appointment in the Governinent service, the procedure required to be followed 
for such appointment cannot be bye-passed and ifthe initial appointment was 
illegal on account of not following the procedure for appointment, the 
incumbent obtaining appointment without following due procedure cannot 
claim as a matter of right to be regularised. This Court however has looked F 
with sympathy when question of regularisation came for consideration in 
cases of temporary or adhoc appointments, even made improperly if the 
incumbents had been allowed to continue for a long time because of the 
human problem involved in such continued service. In the insta

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