CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILA PARISHAD, THANE & ORS. versus SANTOSH TUKARAM TIWARE & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 15 S.C.R. 817 · Decided: 24-11-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
817
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILA PARISHAD,
THANE & ORS.
v.
SANTOSH TUKARAM TIWARE & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8856 of 2022)
NOVEMBER 24, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Service Law: Regularisation in service – Continuity of service
for a longer period on a contractual basis – Regularization sought
on basis thereof – Held: Merely because employee-driver continued
in service for longer period on contractual basis, the order of
regularization ought not to have passed more particularly, when a
policy decision was taken to avail the services of the driver by the
agency/contractor and that the appointment of employee and other
similarly situated drivers was not made after any selection procedure
– Appointment of the employee was purely on stopgap and on
contractual basis – Thus, the High Court erred in ordering
regularization, and the order is quashed and set aside – Policy
decision.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 When respondent No. 1 was initially appointed
in the year 2010, he was appointed on temporarily contractual
basis till the tender process to award the contract for availing the
services of the driver is completed. In communication dated
29.03.2010, the District Health Officer, Zila Parishad
communicated to the Block Development Officer. That thereafter
only applications were invited and the appointment of driver of
ambulance on contractual basis was made. In the appointment
order itself it was specifically provided that if at the said place
appointment of Zila Parishad driver is done then the appointment
of concerned driver would be terminated. Therefore, at the
relevant time neither there was any selection process followed
nor it can be said that the appointment of respondent as driver
was made after following due procedure as required. It appears
that at the relevant time the appointment on contractual basis
was made looking to the public interest and to see that the
[2022] 15 S.C.R. 817
817
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
818
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
ambulance is not without any driver. At this stage, it is required
to be noted that after G.O. issued by the Government, the regular
appointments were banned and services of the driver were to be
provided by the contractor/agency. It is true that for whatever
reason the tender process to award the contract could not be
completed and therefore, respondent No. 1 continued to render
services as a driver on contractual basis. That the further tender
process was started in the month of March, 2021 which was
awarded in the month of July, 2021 and therefore, as the contract
was awarded to the agency to provide services of the drivers,
the services of respondent No. 1 along with other similarly situated
drivers were put to an end by order dated 15.07.2021. That
thereafter respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition before the High
Court praying for regularization which was filed on 31.07.2021,
and by that time vide order dated 15.07.2021 the services of
respondent No. 1 was put to an end. Despite the above and solely
on the ground that respondent No. 1 has rendered his services
for longer period the High Court ordered regularization. The High
Court also set aside order dated 15.07.2021 though the same
was not challenged before the High Court. Without challenging
order dated 15.07.2021 the High Court ought not to have set
aside order dated 15.07.2021 which was on the award of the
contract to the agency. [Para 6 and 6.1][823-C; 824-D, E]
1.3 Merely because respondent No. 1 continued in service
for longer period on contractual basis the High Court ought not
to have passed the order of regularization more particularly, when
a policy decision was taken to avail the services of the driver by
the agency/contractor and that the appointment of respondent
No. 1 and other similarly situated drivers was not made after any
selection procedure. The appointment of respondent No. 1 was
purely on stopgap and on contractual basis. Under the
circumstances, the High Court committed a very serious error
in ordering regularization as well as quashing and setting aside
order dated 15.07.2021 by which on the contract being awarded
to Security Services Company., the services of respondent No. 1
was put to an end. Thus, the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court quashing and setting aside communication
dated 15.07.2021 putting an end to services of respondent No. 1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
819
on the contract being awarded to the Security Services Company,
and the o

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