COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION HYDERABAD AND OTHERS versus P. MARY MANORANJANI AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2008] 1 S.C.R. 629 · Decided: 11-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 1 S.C.R. 629 
" 
~ 
COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION 
A 
HYDERABAD AND OTHERS 
v. 
P. MARY MANORANJANI AND ANOTHER 
(C.A. No. 341 of 2008) 
JANUARY 11, 2008 
B 
-t 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
~ 
Service Law - Appointment by absorption of casual 
workers - For the purpose of appointment exemption granted c 
from sponsorship of the names of candidates from 
Employment. Exchange - Employer-Corporation requiring 
written test, typing test and interview for recruitment -
Candidate-casual worker not appearing in written and typing 
test, but appearing in interview - Candidate seeking regular D 
appointment - Termination of her services as a casual worker 
~ 
on the ground of unauthorised absence from duty -
Termination challenged -
High Court directing her 
appointment - On appeal, held: Appointment rightly denied 
~ 
to the candidate - She did not have any legal right to be E 
appointed - The Government order granted exemption only 
from sponsorship of the names by the Employment Exchange 
.. 
and not from the recruitment procedure -A public employment 
~ 
in derogation of constitutional scheme provided u/arts. 14 and 
16 of the Constitution and statutory requirements is not 
i 
permissible - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 12, 14 and F 
,. 
16- GO. Ms. No. 27 M.A. (Q) dated 16.1.1991. 
Respondent No. 1 had joined the services of the 
L 
appellant-corporation as a Balwad: teacher (casual 
worker). The Corporation requested the State to grant G 
exemption to the casual workers from requirement of 
sponsorship of the candidates by the Employment 
Exchange for appointment in the regular post. The 
exemption was granted by G.O. Ms. No. 27 M.A. (Q) dated 
16.2.1991 .. The respondent, for the purpose of selection .H 
629 
630 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 
A in a regular post, was required to appear for interview and 
written test. She appeared for interview, but did not appear 
in written test and typing test. Thereafter a letter was 
received by the Corporation from Welfare Association 
requesting the Corporation that the services of the 
B respondent be terminated since she had unauthorisedly 
remained absent for long time as a casual worker. 
Thereafter, respondent requested the Corporation 
seeking her absorption as a typist. Corporation 
terminated her services in view of the unexplained 
c absence. Respondent filed writ petition, challenging the 
order of termination. Single Judge of High Court allowed 
the same on the ground that once the name of the 
candidate appeared in the list of candidates in terms of 
the G.O., appointment to her could not have been denied 
0 in view of G.O. Ms No. 27, on the ground that on the date 
of interview she was not in actual service. Appeal of the 
Corporation was dismissed by Division Bench of High 
Court. Hence the present appeal. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Constitutional scheme in regard to public 
employment as enumerated in Articles 14 and 16 of the 
Constitution of India is explicit. Any appointment made 
by a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the 
Constitution of India must be subject to the constitutional 
F scheme. In making appointments the State is obligated 
t 
to comply with the same as also statutory requirements, 
G 
if any. Neither the appellant nor the State could grant any 
exemption in regard to compliance of the statutory 
requirements. [Para 13] (635-F, G, H; 636-A] 
2. The G.O. Ms. No. 27 M.A. (Q) dated 16.1.1991 
granted only exemption from sponsorship of the names 
by the Employment Exchange. Appellant did not and in 
fact could not ask for grant of any exemption from its 
H obligation to comply with the requirements of Articles 14 
COMMNR .. MUNICIPAL CORPN. HYDERABAD & ORS. 
631 
v. P. MARY MANORANJANI & ANR. [S.8. SINHA, J.] 
"' 
~ 
and 16 of the Constitution of India or other Statutory Rules A 
operating in the field in this behalf. It is now a well settled 
principle of law that any appointment made in violation of 
the statute or the constitutional provision wo•Jld be illegal. 
[Para 14) [636-A, B) 
Secretary State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Uma Devi (3) 
8 
--t 
and Ors. 2006 (4) sec 1 - relied on. 
' 
3. The G.O. is not at all applicable in a case of this 
• 
nature, where a candidate not only did not appear at the 
written test for the purpose of recruitment to the regular c 
post but also failed to attend to her duties for a number of 
years. Respondent was engaged for a particular purp

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